Changes

*[[affirmative action]] case, on its second trip to the Supreme Court, in ''Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin'', No. 14-981

*[[affirmative action]] case, on its second trip to the Supreme Court, in ''Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin'', No. 14-981

*two voting rights cases, relating to the concept of "one man, one vote."  ''Evenwel v. Abbott'', No. 14-940, and ''Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin'', No. 14-981.

*two voting rights cases, relating to the concept of "one man, one vote."  ''Evenwel v. Abbott'', No. 14-940, and ''Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin'', No. 14-981.

*''Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company'', No. 14-181, which concerns the validity of a Vermont statute that forces health insurance companies to turn over confidential patient records to the State so that it can build a massive database about health care claims.

*''[[Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.]]'', No. 14-181, which concerns the validity of a Vermont statute that forces health insurance companies to turn over confidential patient records to the State so that it can build a massive database about health care claims.

::From the Question Presented:

::From the Question Presented:

:::Vermont, like many other States, requires health care providers and health care payers to provide claims data and related information to the State's health care database. The law applies to all public and private entities that pay for health care services, including insurers, government programs, and third-party administrators. The State relies on the database to inform health care policy. The question presented is:

:::Vermont, like many other States, requires health care providers and health care payers to provide claims data and related information to the State's health care database. The law applies to all public and private entities that pay for health care services, including insurers, government programs, and third-party administrators. The State relies on the database to inform health care policy. The question presented is:

::::Did the Second Circuit -in a 2-1 panel decision that disregarded the considered opinion advanced by the United States as amicus - err in holding that [[ERISA]] preempts Vermont's health care database law as applied to the third-party administrator for a self-funded ERISA plan?  

::::Did the Second Circuit -in a 2-1 panel decision that disregarded the considered opinion advanced by the United States as amicus - err in holding that [[ERISA]] preempts Vermont's health care database law as applied to the third-party administrator for a self-funded ERISA plan?  

*Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339, to address whether Congress may create Article III standing for plaintiffs who do not suffer any concrete and thus who could not otherwise attain standing in federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a violation of a federal statute without any injury.

*''Spokeo v. Robins'', No. 13-1339, to address whether Congress may create Article III standing for plaintiffs who do not suffer any concrete and thus who could not otherwise attain standing in federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a violation of a federal statute without any injury.

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no [[Fourth Amendment]] cases among the 35.

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no [[Fourth Amendment]] cases among the 35.

<references/>

<references/>

 

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]