The US Supreme Court granted [order, PDF] certiorari in five cases Thursday.

The first of these cases is Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority [cert. petition, PDF], which “tests the immunity of governmental ‘sue and be sued’ entities” and questions whether the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit used the correct rule in order to protect the Tennessee Valley Authority from the plaintiff’s claims. The court will not only decide if the Eleventh Circuit used the correct rule, but also if they then correctly applied that rule to the case.

The second case is Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. George W. Jackson [cert. petition, PDF]. The core question before the court is “[w]hether an original defendant to a class-action claim can remove the class action if it otherwise satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act when the class action was originally asserted as a counterclaim against a co-defendant.” The court will also decide whether a previous holding saying “that an original plaintiff may not remove a counterclaim against it” applies to third-party counterclaim defendants.

Azar v. Allina Health Services [cert. petition, PDF] focuses on notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS must use notice-and-comment rulemaking when making rules that affect payments under the Medicare Act. The question presented is whether HHS is required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking “before providing instructions to a Medicare Administrative Contractor that makes initial determinations of payments due under Medicare.”

In Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. [cert. petition, PDF], the court will decide whether, under the Copyright Act, a prevailing party in a suit is limited to only taxable costs or allowed non-taxable costs. The Copyright Act allows “full costs,” but lower courts of appeal have disagreed over whether it allows only taxable costs or extends to non-taxable costs as well.

The final case is Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd [cert. petition, PDF]. The question the court will consider is whether states are allowed, under the 21st Amendment, “to regulate liquor sales by granting retail or wholesale licenses only to individuals or entities that have resided in-state for a specified time.”