Episodios
-
In re Williams (No. 25-1214) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026.
-
In re Stone (No. 26-1009) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026.
-
¿Faltan episodios?
-
In re Scheuplein, IV (No. 25-1259) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026.
-
In re Pearlman (No. 26-1051) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026.
-
In re Miles (No. 26-1014) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026.
-
In re Koehler (No. 25-1110) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026.
-
In re Gavrieli (No. 26-1000) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026.
-
In re Catron (No. 25-1137) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026.
-
Abouammo v. United States (No. 25-5146) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 30, 2026. Question presented: As part of an investigation into a scheme to disclose nonpublic Twitter account information to foreign actors, San Francisco-based FBI agents visited Petitioner Ahmad Abouammo at his home in Seattle. While they were there, Mr. Abouammo went upstairs and emailed them an allegedly falsified document. Mr. Abouammo's only interaction with the agents occurred in Seattle. A grand jury in the Northern District of California indicted Mr. Abouammo for (among other things) falsifying documents with the intent to impede an investigation. The parties then agreed to toll the statute of limitations for other uncharged offenses. On the day the tolling agreement expired, the government filed a superseding information adding various felony counts. Mr. Abouammo never waived prosecution by indictment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b). Four months after the limitations period had expired, the government dismissed this placeholder information and replaced it with a superseding indictment containing the same charges. The questions presented are: 1. Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute's intent element "contemplates" effects that could occur there. 2. Whether a criminal information unaccompanied by a waiver of indictment is an "information charging a felony" that allows the government to unilaterally extend the statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3288. GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2025
-
Pitchford v. Cain (No. 24-7351) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 31, 2026. Question presented: District Attorney Doug Evans convicted Terry Pitchford, aged 18 years at the time of the crime, of capital murder and secured a death verdict in the Grenada Circuit Court before Judge Joseph Loper on February 9, 2006, with the entirety of jury selection and opening arguments taking place on February 6. After direct and collateral reviews in state court, the Northern District of Mississippi granted habeas corpus relief upon concluding that the trial court failed to determine the plausibility of the prosecutor’s proffered reasons for peremptorily striking four Black venire members or otherwise consider the full circumstances bearing upon whether Mr. Evans’s reasons for striking any and each of these four venire members was pretextual and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In so doing, the District Court ruled the state supreme court’s reliance on its waiver jurisprudence improperly foreclosed consideration of pretext under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that Judge Loper implicitly made determinations for each of the four strikes, trial counsel waived argument of pretext, and the Supreme Court of Mississippi’s waiver jurisprudence comports with Batson. This opinion in Pitchford v. Cain confirmed the Fifth Circuit’s disavowal of earlier circuit jurisprudence recognizing, inter alia, that since Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (Miller-El II), capital petitioners had been unable to “waive[] any Batson claim based on a comparison analysis,” Woodward v. Epps, 580 F.3d 318, 338 (5th Cir. 2009), deepening the Fifth Circuit’s split, joined by two other circuits, with the majority of courts of appeals in the application of Batson. This petition presents the following questions: 1. Does clearly established federal law determined by this Court and applied in six other circuits require reversal of a state appellate court’s denial of relief from a capital prosecutor’s discriminatory exercise of four peremptory strikes a
-
Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 01, 2026. Question presented: The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those "born * * * in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," are U.S. citizens. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and provides, on a prospective basis only, that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth. The Citizenship Order directs federal agencies not to issue or accept citizenship documents for such children born more than 30 days after the Order's effective date. The question presented is whether the Executive Order complies on its face with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause. CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2025
-
T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation (No. 25-197) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 20, 2026. Question presented: Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court. CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2025
-
United States v. Madrid (No. 25-40161) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued July 08, 2026.
-
United States v. Gibson (No. 25-30445) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued July 08, 2026.
-
United States v. Enclade (No. 24-30684) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued July 08, 2026.
-
Sanchez v. Rubio (No. 25-40241) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued July 08, 2026.
-
Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic, AS (No. 25-2424) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 08, 2026.
-
United States v. LeBeaux (No. 25-3088) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 08, 2026.
- Mostrar más
