The case NVIDIA v. Öhman, concerning the sufficiency of pleadings under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The core dispute centers on the level of detail required in complaints alleging corporate fraud, specifically regarding the use of expert reports and the necessity of disclosing the contents of internal documents. The justices debated the appropriate balance between preventing frivolous lawsuits and allowing meritorious claims to proceed, questioning whether the Ninth Circuit's standard was too lenient. Arguments focused on the interpretation of "particularity" under the PSLRA and whether a "bright-line rule" should be established. The justices also grappled with the role of circumstantial versus direct evidence in establishing scienter.

The case Salvatore Delligatti v. United States. The case centers on the interpretation of the "Elements Clause" within the Armed Career Criminal Act, specifically whether the clause applies to crimes of omission (failing to act) as well as acts of commission. The petitioner argues that the clause only covers affirmative actions involving violent physical force, while the respondent contends that it includes omissions resulting in harm when a legal duty exists. The justices explore various hypotheticals to determine the scope of "use of physical force," debating whether omissions constitute "use" and whether the statute should be interpreted to include all murders. The central question is whether the petitioner's conviction for hiring a murderer qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the Act's Elements Clause.

The Supreme Court case Velazquez v. Garland. The central issue is the interpretation of a 60-day deadline for voluntary departure in immigration law, specifically whether this deadline should be extended if it falls on a weekend or holiday. The petitioner argues for an extension based on established legal principles and regulations, while the respondent contends the deadline is inflexible. A significant portion of the argument also focuses on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear the case, with the respondent arguing it lacks jurisdiction because the issue does not directly impact the final order of removal. The justices extensively questioned both sides on both the merits and the jurisdictional issues.