There is a familiar rhythm to each U.S. Supreme Court term—the term begins with great excitement; a slow trickle of decisions emerge over the course of the next several months; everyone wonders what is taking so long to decide the "big ones;" the court ends with a bang of major decisions and impassioned dissents; and the justices seem to flee Washington to decompress for a few months while the jurisprudential dust settles across the country.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

On Oct. 7, the justices will start their annual walk down this well-worn path. This term promises to be just as electric as the last one. Here are some of the cases in which the court will hear oral argument in the coming months:

Criminal Law

• Kelly v. United States (3d Cir.) (the New Jersey "Bridgegate" case)—whether a public official "defrauds" the government of property by advancing a "public policy reason" for an official decision that is not her subjective "real reason" for making the decision.
• Ramos v. Louisiana (La. Ct. App.)—whether Louisiana may permit nonunanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases.
• Kahler v. Kansas (Kan.)—whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to abolish the insanity defense.
• Kansas v. Glover (Kan.)—whether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary.

Constitutional Law

• First Amendment: Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (Mon.)—whether it violates the First Amendment's religion clauses or the Equal Protection Clause to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program that affords students the choice of attending religious schools.
• Second Amendment: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, (2d Cir.)—whether New York City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
• Appointments Clause: Aurelius Investments v. Puerto Rico (1^st Cir) (consolidated with other cases)—whether the appointments clause governs the appointment of members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico.

Employment Law

• G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (6^th Cir.)—whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on their status as transgender or sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.
• Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (11^th) (consolidated with others)—whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination "because of … sex" within the meaning of Title VII.
• Babb v. Wilkie (11^th)—whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967—which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any "discrimination based on age," 29 U.S.C. Section 633a(a)—requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.
• Thole v. U.S. Bank (8^th)—whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek injunctive relief against fiduciary misconduct under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek restoration of plan losses caused by fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; and whether petitioners have demonstrated Article III standing.

Intellectual Property

• Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org (11^th)—whether the government edicts doctrine extends to—and thus renders uncopyrightable—works that lack the force of law, such as the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.
• Allen v. Cooper (4^th Cir)—whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act in providing remedies for authors of original expression whose federal copyrights are infringed by states.
• Romag Fasteners v. Fossil (Fed. Cir.)—whether, under Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1117(a), willful infringement is a prerequisite for an award of an infringer's profits for a violation of Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a).

Statutory Interpretation

• Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media (9^th)—whether a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 requires a showing of but-for causation.
• Monasky v. Taglieri (6^th)—whether, when an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, a subjective agreement between the infant's parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention.
• Moda Health Plan v. United States (Fed. Cir.) (consolidated with others)—whether Congress can evade a statutory promise to pay health insurers for losses already incurred by enacting appropriations riders restricting the sources of funds available to satisfy the government's obligation.
• Rotkiske v. Klemm (3d Cir.)—whether the "discovery rule" applies to toll the one-year statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Preemption

• Atlantic Richfield v. Christian (9^th)—whether CERCLA preempts state common-law claims for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.
• Kansas v. Garcia (Kan.)—whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act preempts states from using any information entered on or appended to a federal Form I-9, including common information such as name, date of birth, and Social Security number, in a prosecution of any person (citizen or alien) when that same information also appears in non-IRCA documents, such as state tax forms, leases and credit applications

Miscelleanous

• Immigration—Trump v. NAACP (2d Cir) (consolidated with others)—whether the Department of Homeland Security's decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and whether DHS' decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
• Civil Procedure—Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashion Group (2d Cir.)—whether, when a plaintiff asserts new claims, federal preclusion principles can bar a defendant from raising defenses that were not actually litigated and resolved in any prior case between the parties.
• Bankruptcy—Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry (6^th)—whether an order denying a motion for relief from an automatic stay in a bankruptcy case is a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. Section 158(a)(1).
• Arbitration—GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA (11^th)—whether the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards permits a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement to compel arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
• Environmental—County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (9^th)—whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater.
• International—Opati v. Republic of Sudan (D.C. Cir.)—whether, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively, thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute.

In early October, the court will announce additional cases that it intends to consider in the coming months. Combined with the hot-button issues already on the docket, this promises to be another exciting term for court-watchers.

Stephen A. Miller practices in the commercial litigation group at Cozen O'Connor's Philadelphia office. Prior to joining the firm, he clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court and served as a federal prosecutor for nine years in the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.