Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board (Argued 11/2/2020)

Does a decision by the Railroad Retirement Board denying a request to reopen a prior benefits claim constitute a “final decision” subject to judicial review?

Advocates:
Sarah M. Harris, for the petitioner
Austin Raynor, for the respondent

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club (Argued 11/2/2020)

Does Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, by incorporating the deliberative process privilege, protect against compelled disclosure of a federal agency’s draft documents that were prepared as part of a formal interagency consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and that concerned a proposed agency action that was later modified in the consultation process?

Advocates:
Matthew Guarnieri, for the petitioners
Sanjay Narayan, for the respondent

Jones v. Mississippi (Argued 11/3/2020)

Does the Eighth Amendment require a sentencing authority to find that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before it may impose a sentence of life without the possibility of parole?

Advocates:
David M. Shapiro, for the petitioner
Krissy C. Nobile, for the respondent
Frederick Liu, for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the respondent

Borden v. United States (Argued 11/3/2020)

Does the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act encompass crimes with an intent requirement of mere recklessness?

Advocates:
Kannon K. Shanmugam, for the petitioner
Eric J. Feigin, for the respondent

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (Argued 11/4/2020)

1. To succeed on their free exercise claim, must plaintiffs prove that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views, or only provide sufficient evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable?

2. Should the Court revisit its decision in Employment Division v. Smith?

3. Does the government violate the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs?

Advocates:
Lori H. Windham, for the petitioners
Hashim M. Mooppan, for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners
Neal Kumar Katyal, for respondents Philadelphia et al.
Jeffrey L. Fisher, for respondents Support Center for Child Advocates and Philadelphia Family Pride