The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

Johnson v. United States Congress | 10/05/26 | Docket #: 25-735

25-735 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES CONGRESS
DECISION BELOW: 151 F.4th 1287
CERT. GRANTED 4/6/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Did the Veterans' Judicial Review Act strip district courts of the jurisdiction, recognized
by this Court in
Johnson v. Robison
, 415 U.S. 361 (1974), to hear challenges to the
constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting veterans' benefits?
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-10682

Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County | 10/05/26 | Docket #: 25-170

25-170 SUNCOR ENERGY, INC. V. COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY
DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 1363355
IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO
BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THIS COURT HAS STATUTORY AND
ARTICLE III JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS CASE.
SEPTEMBER
28
,
2026
:
JUSTICE ALITO WILL NOT CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CASE.

 
CERT. GRANTED 2/23/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly
caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global
climate.

LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24SA206

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. | 04/29/26 | Docket #: 24-889

24-889 HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS V. AMARIN PHARMA, INC.
DECISION BELOW: 104 F.4th 1370
CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act "[t]o facilitate the approval of generic drugs as
soon as patents allow."
Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
, 566 U.S. 399, 405
(2012). Recognizing that many drugs are approved for both patented and unpatented uses,
Congress sought to ensure "that one patented use will not foreclose marketing a generic drug
for other unpatented ones."
Id
. at 415. The statutory mechanism is a "skinny label": Generic
drugmakers "carve out" patented uses from their labels, leaving only instructions to use
generic drugs for their unpatented uses. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii).
Congress designed this carve-out mechanism to encourage competition and to protect
generic drugmakers from allegations that marketing a generic drug for an unpatented use
"actively induces infringement." 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). After all, active inducement requires "clear
expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement"-there is no "liability when a
defendant merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use."
Metro-Goldwyn-
Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
, 545 U.S. 913, 936-937 & n.11 (2005).
The questions presented are:
1. When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the
generic drugmaker calls its product a "generic version" and cites public information about the
branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use?
2. Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it
does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or
even mentions, the patented use?

LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2023-1169

Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe | 04/29/26 | Docket #: 25-1083

25-1083 MULLIN, SEC. DHS V. DOE
DECISION BELOW:
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY (25A952) PRESENTED TO JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR AND BY HER REFERRED TO THE COURT IS DEFERRED. CONSIDERATION OF THE
APPLICATION FOR STAY (25A999) PRESENTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND BY HIM REFERRED TO
THE COURT IS ALSO DEFERRED. THE APPLICATIONS ARE ALSO TREATED AS PETITIONS FOR A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT (25-1083, 25-1084), AND THE PETITIONS ARE
GRANTED. THE CASES ARE CONSOLIDATED, AND A TOTAL OF ONE HOUR IS ALLOTTED FOR
ORAL ARGUMENT.
CERT. GRANTED 3/16/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 25-2995

Cisco Systems v. Doe I | 04/28/26 | Docket #: 24-856

24-856 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. V. DOE I
DECISION BELOW: 73 F.4th 700
GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 3 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.
CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
1.

Whether the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, allows a judicially-implied
private right of action for aiding and abetting.
2.

Whether, if ATS aiding-and-abetting claims are cognizable, mere knowledge rather than
purpose suffices to show the requisite
mens rea.
3.

Whether the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, allows a judicially-
implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 15-16909