Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Brandon Hughes v. National Football League

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 24-2656 · judgment June 20, 2025


Certiorari denied · March 9, 2026
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

The Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) prohibits a “ video tape ser vice provider” from “know ingly disclos[ing], to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1). The statute defines “consumer” to include a “subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” Id. § 2710(a)(1). It defines “personally identifiable information” to include information that “identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider.” Id. § 2710(a)(3). The National Football League (“NFL”) is a “video tape service provider.” It has never argued otherwise. Brandon Hughes is the NFL’s “consumer” because he subscribed to the league’s online newsletter and to NFL+, a premium video-streaming service. After Mr. Hughes watched videos on NFL.com, the NFL disclosed his videowatching history to Facebook. Facebook understood the disclosed information to identify Mr. Hughes as having requested or obtained those videos. The NFL knew Facebook would understand the disclosed information that way. The Second Circuit dismissed Mr. Hughes’s VPPA claim, however, because an “ordinary person” would not also have understood the disclosed information. The question is whether information that, to one recipient, “identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider” counts as “personally identifiable information,” even when a hypothetical “ordinary person” would not understand the information to do so.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Joshua Ian Hammack
Bailey & Glasser, LLP

For respondent
Jeremy Charles Marwell
Vinson & Elkins LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Linked docket
25A547

Proceedings

  1. Mar 09 2026
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Feb 18 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2026.
  3. Feb 11 2026
    Waiver of right of respondent National Football League to respond filed.
  4. Jan 16 2026
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 20, 2026)
  5. Nov 12 2025
    Application (25A547) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until January 16, 2026.
  6. Nov 07 2025
    Application (25A547) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 19, 2025 to January 16, 2026, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.