A case in which the Court will decide whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the phrase “entitled… to benefits” includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.

A case in which the Court will decide whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1).

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.

A case in which the Court will decide whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

A capital case in which the Court will decide whether to allow Oklahoma to execute Petitioner Richard Glossip after numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct and other errors, where even the state no longer defends the capital sentence.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has the authority to regulate so-called “ghost guns”—that is, firearms without serial numbers that can be assembled from parts.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a party who obtains a preliminary injunction is a “prevailing party” for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.