Supreme Court of the United States
 

Today at the Court - Wednesday, Feb 26, 2020


  • The Supreme Court Building is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
  • The Court will convene for a public session in the Courtroom at 10 a.m. The Justices will hear one, one-hour oral argument.
  • The Court may announce opinions, which are posted on the homepage after announcement from the Bench.
  • Courtroom Lectures available within the next 30 days.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<<February 2020><<
February 2020
SMTWTFS
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16
 
1819202122
23242526272829
       
Calendar Info/Key

 


Oral Arguments

Week of Monday, February 24


Monday, February 24
       
U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Assn. (18-1584)
       
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC v. Cowpasture River Assn. (18-1587)
Consolidated
       
Opati. v. Sudan (17-1268)


Tuesday, February 25
       
United States v. Sineneng-Smith (19-67)


Wednesday, February 26
       
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez (18-8369)



The transcripts of oral arguments are posted on this website on the same day an argument is heard by the Court. Same-day transcripts are considered official but subject to final review. The audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court of the United States are available to the public at the end of each argument week. The audio recordings are posted on Fridays after Conference.


Earlier Transcripts | Earlier Audio

Recent Decisions


February 26, 2020
         
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma (18-1116)
Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requirement that plaintiffs with “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach must file suit within three years of gaining that knowledge, 29 U. S. C. §1113(2), a plaintiff does not necessarily have “actual knowledge” of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading.

         
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States (18-7739)
Petitioner’s district-court argument for a specific sentence (nothing or less than 12 months) preserved, for purposes of Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 51(b), his claim on appeal that the sentence imposed was unreasonably long.

         
Shular v. United States (18-6662)
For purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s sentence enhancement for a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm who has at least three convictions for “serious drug offense[s],” 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(1), the “serious drug offense” definition requires only that a state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute; it does not require that the state offense match certain generic offenses.



February 25, 2020
         
McKinney v. Arizona (18-1109)
When a capital sentencing error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, is found on collateral review, a state appellate court may conduct the reweighing of aggravating and mitigating evidence, as permitted by Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738, on collateral review.

         
Rodriguez v. FDIC (18-1269)
The rule of In re Bob Richards Chrysler-Plymouth Corp., 473 F. 2d 262—which specifies how federal tax refund proceeds should be allocated among members of an affiliated group of corporations that file a consolidated return—is not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking.

         
Hernández v. Mesa (17-1678)
A cross-border shooting by a United States Border Patrol agent does not give rise to a damages claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388.

         
Monasky v. Taglieri (18-935)
Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a child’s “habitual residence” depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case, not on categorical requirements such as an actual agreement between the parties.



More Opinions...

Did You Know...

Marbury v. Madison (1803)


The Supreme Court first exercised judicial review —the power to rule a law or act unconstitutional—in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In 1801, outgoing President John Adams appointed William Marbury to a federal office, but Marbury’s commission went undelivered and the new President, Thomas Jefferson, upon taking office, refused to order it delivered. Marbury sued. The Court heard oral arguments on February 10-11, 1803 and reached a decision just two weeks later. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that while Marbury was entitled to his commission, the Court lacked the power to order Secretary of State James Madison to deliver it. Marshall explained that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorizing such an order was unconstitutional because it gave the Court a power beyond what was prescribed by the Constitution.

 

William Marbury (left), by unknown artist. James Madison (right) by Adrian Lamb, after Gilbert Stuart.
William Marbury (left), by unknown artist.
James Madison (right) by Adrian Lamb, after Gilbert Stuart.
Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543