The Supreme Court’s November sitting starts in October this year. That’s the beauty of being a Supreme Court justice; you can make your own rules and naming conventions.
Without a federal holiday to schedule around, the Nine have a full schedule for the sitting beginning on October 29, (as it’s more-properly identified). The 12 cases on the November hearing schedule are:
Monday, Oct. 29:
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA -- Does Amnesty International have Article III standing to challenge secret surveillance statutes? Can the group get prospective relief?
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. -- A case examining "gray market" resale of copyrighted works
Tuesday, Oct. 30:
Chaidez v. U.S. -- Does Padilla v. Kentucky apply retroactively to required legal advice to immigrants facing deportation after committing a crime?
Bailey v. U.S. -- When police have a warrant to search a home, can they detain off-site while they do the search?
Wednesday, October 31:
Florida v. Jardines -- Determining whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause?
Florida v. Harris -- Similar to Jardines, Harris addresses whether police need probable cause to use a trained narcotics dog to sniff a vehicle.
Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans -- A second case raising class certification questions.
Tuesday, November 6:
Smith v. U.S. -- Can a defendant withdraw from a conspiracy and beat the conspiracy rap?
Evans v. Mitchell -- Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar retrial after the trial judge erroneously holds a particular fact to be an element of the offense and then grants a midtrial directed verdict of acquittal because the prosecution failed to prove that fact?
Wednesday, November 7:
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. -- Whether a federal district court is divested of Article III jurisdiction over a party's challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark if the registrant promises not to assert its mark against the party's then-existing commercial activities.
Marx v. General Revenue Corp. -- Can a prevailing defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case be awarded costs for a lawsuit that was not "brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment"?