[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] Thursday granted certiorari [order list, PDF] to 11 cases, adding them to the docket for decision for the upcoming term. In the case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] the court has been asked to rule on the constitutionality of a voter approved amendment to the Arizona constitution that assigned the task of drawing the lines of congressional districts to an independent, five-member body.

In Tibble v. Edison International [SCOTUSblog backgrounder; cert. petition, PDF] the court granted limited the petition to the following question:

Whether a claim that ERISA plan fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence by offering higher-cost retail-class mutual funds to plan participants, even though identical lower-cost institution-class mutual funds were available, is barred by 29 U.S.C. §1113(1) when fiduciaries initially chose the higher-cost mutual funds as plan investments more than six years before the claim was filed.

Coleman-Bey v. Tollefson [SCOTUSblog backgrounder; cert. petition, PDF] concerns the “three-strike” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act [text] which bars an inmate from filing a new lawsuit over prison conditions after three prior lawsuits had failed on the grounds of lack of merit.

In Ohio v. Clark [SCOTUSblog backgrounder; cert. petition; PDF] the court is expected to rule on whether individuals who are required to report suspected child abuse under state law become an “agent of the state for law-enforcement purposes.”

In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. [SCOTUSblog backgrounder; cert. petition, PDF] the court is expected to rule on whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. The court has twice before granted cert. to resolve this issue however, in both situations the cases were dismissed before the court had an opportunity to answer the question.

Kerry v. Din [SCOTUSblog backgrounder; cert. petition, PDF], brought by US Department of State (DOS) [official website], asks the court to decide whether DOS consular officers have the authority to deny visas to individuals seeking entrance to the US, more specifically a “US citizen’s alien spouse.”

In Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar [SCOTUSblog backgrounder; cert. petition, PDF] the court is tasked with a single question, “Whether a rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment.” The decision is expected to answer a circuit split.

In Rodriguez v. United States [order] the court must decide a Fourth Amendment [text, LII] question regarding whether a law enforcement officer may extend an already-completed legal traffic stop for a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion.

In Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. [SCOTUSblog backgrounder; cert. petition, PDF] the court must decide two questions regarding whether Medicaid providers have a private right of action to enforce 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) [text].

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. [SCOTUSblog backgrounder; cert. petition, PDF] presents the Court with a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [text] question regarding a retailer who denied a job to a Muslim applicant because her headscarf conflicted with the company’s dress code.

In the final case granted certiorari, Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, L.L.C., [SCOTUSblog backgrounder; cert. petition, PDF], the court must decide whether § 330(a) of the Bankruptcy Code [text, LII] grants bankruptcy judges discretion to award compensation for the defense of a fee application.