|                            Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck (Argued 02/25/2019)                        |                     
                                          |                          Are private operators of public access channels state actors subject to constitutional liability?                                                   Advocates:                             Michael B. de Leeuw, for the petitioners                             Paul W. Hughes, for the respondents                                                     |                       
                                              |                              United States v. Haymond (Argued 02/26/2019)                          |                       
                                              |                            Does 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by imposing a mandatory minimum punishment on a criminal defendant upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant engaged in certain criminal conduct during supervised release?                                                       Advocates:                               Eric J. Feigin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the petitioner                               William D. Lunn, for the respondent                                                         |                         
                                                  |                                Mont v. United States (Argued 02/26/2019)                            |                         
                                                  |                              Is the term of supervised release for one offense paused by imprisonment for another offense?                                                           Advocates:                                 Vanessa F. Malone, for the petitioner                                 Jenny Ellickson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the respondent                                                             |                           
                                                      |                                  The American Legion v. American Humanist Association (Argued 02/27/2019)                              |                           
                                                                                                                    - Is the display and maintenance of the cross unconstitutional?
  - Under what test should the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism be assessed?
  - Does the expenditure of funds to maintain the cross amount to the government's excessive entanglement with religion?
                                                                     Advocates:                                     Neal Kumar Katyal, for the petitioner in No. 18-18                                     Michael A. Carvin, for the petitioners in No. 17-1717                                     Jeffrey B. Wall, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners                                     Monica L. Miller, for the respondents                                                                     |                               
                                                              Listen to other Supreme Court oral arguments from 1955-Present at Oyez.org
  | 
没有评论:
发表评论