Sara Coombs-Moreno, et al. v. City of New York, New York, et al.

Whether federal, state or local government may regulate the means and methods of controlling a recognized occupational hazard—including by requiring private employers to impose specified conditions of employment—where federal standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act already govern that issue and the Act contains an express preemption provision, 29 U.S.C. §667.

Whether 29 U.S.C. § 669(a)(5), which provides that “nothing in this or any other provision of the Act authorizes or requires medical examination, immunization, or treatment over religious objection,” protects an individual federal right prohibiting employers and government entities from compelling any medical treatment as a workplace safety measure.

Whether lower courts may invoke stare decisis to decline to apply the plain text of a federal statute that expressly provides a private right of action where prior precedent did not interpret the statutory provisions at issue.

Whether a federal court may deny declaratory and injunctive relief, including class certification, for ongoing violations of federal law solely on the ground that the statute does not expressly provide a private right of action for damages.

Whether repeal of a government mandate moots claims for declaratory and injunctive relief where employees remain excluded from employment and continue to suffer ongoing consequences.

Whether a federal court may deny a motion for summary judgment based solely on local procedural rules requiring pre-motion authorization, where Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 mandates summary judgment in the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact.