Amarin Pharma sued Hikma Pharmaceuticals, claiming Hikma's public statements encouraged doctors to infringe Amarin's patent on its drug Vascepa. A district court threw out the complaint. The Supreme Court must decide whether those statements can count as actively inducing patent infringement.
Case
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
People suing Cisco say it knowingly helped Chinese officials persecute Falun Gong practitioners from the United States. The Supreme Court must decide whether federal law allows lawsuits against a company for helping torture happen abroad, even when the company did not carry out the abuse itself.
Monsanto says its weed killer's EPA-approved label shields it from a Missouri cancer lawsuit. The person suing says federal approval is no excuse, and the Supreme Court must decide which argument wins.
Okello Chatrie says a warrant that let police search Google's location records around a bank robbery broke Fourth Amendment rules. The United States says the search was lawful and asks the Court to uphold it.
A green card holder challenges his removal, arguing the government must prove he was seeking admission before it can parole him. The government says it can meet that proof duty later, in the removal proceeding.
The SEC and a challenger disagree over whether money recovered from securities violators must go to harmed investors or can stay with the government as a deterrent.
The Supreme Court must decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause gives automatic citizenship to babies born here to temporary visitors or undocumented parents. Or whether the government can exclude them.
Abouammo v. United States asks the Supreme Court to decide where a federal fraud crime counts as happening. The dispute is whether a trial can take place in San Francisco when the person created a false record elsewhere. The answer decides where the trial can occur.
Adrian Jules says the court lacked power to confirm a money award against him. Andre Balazs Properties says the court should enter judgment on the award and dismiss the case. The Supreme Court heard argument on March 30, 2026.
Flowers Foods says its bread delivery driver, Angelo Brock, is not exempt from federal wage rules because he never crossed a state line. Brock says the exemption covers drivers on the last leg of an interstate journey. The Supreme Court heard argument on March 25, 2026.
The federal government limits how many people can approach the border to ask for protection. Al Otro Lado says that policy breaks federal law. The Supreme Court must decide what the word arrives means in the immigration statute.
Keathley says the Fifth Circuit applies too strict a presumption of intent when a debtor omits an asset. Buddy Ayers Construction defends the ruling, saying finality and court integrity justify it. The United States, as a friend of the court, asks the Court to vacate and send the case back for a broader fairness review.
Munson P. Hunter, III pleaded guilty under a deal that waived his right to appeal his sentence. He says contract law can excuse that waiver when a sentence is clearly wrong. The United States says a valid waiver sticks. The Supreme Court heard argument on March 3, 2026, and has not ruled.
United States v. Hemani asks whether the federal ban on gun possession by unlawful drug users can constitutionally apply to Ali Danial Hemani. The government defends the charge. Hemani argues the law cannot be applied to him.
A Michigan homeowner lost his house over unpaid taxes. The county sold it and kept the entire sale price. The homeowner says the Constitution entitles him to more than the small surplus left after the debt.
Enbridge Energy missed the 30-day deadline for moving its pipeline dispute from Michigan state court to federal court. The company asks the Supreme Court to let federal courts use equitable powers to excuse that delay. Michigan's attorney general says Congress set a mandatory deadline that courts cannot override.
Havana Docks built docks in Cuba. The Cuban government seized them in 1960 without payment. Royal Caribbean later paid Cuba to use those docks. The dispute is whether that payment constitutes trafficking in confiscated property.