A case in which the Court held that a former U.S. President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act—which requires hospitals receiving Medicare funding to offer “necessary stabilizing treatment” to pregnant women in emergencies—preempts an Idaho law that criminalizes most abortions in the state.

A case in which the Court will decide what test courts must use to evaluate the National Labor Relations Board’s requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the denial of a visa to the non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen infringes on a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen and, if so, whether the government properly justified that decision.

A case in which the Court held that Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, and does not give district courts discretion to dismiss the suit when all claims are subject to arbitration.

A case in which the Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment does not prevent a city from enforcing a ban on public camping against homeless individuals.

A case in which the Court held that when a capital defendant claims that he was prejudiced at sentencing because counsel failed to present available mitigating evidence, a court must decide whether it is reasonably likely that the additional evidence would have avoided a death sentence, which the court does by evaluating the strength of all the evidence and comparing the weight of aggravating and mitigating factors.

A case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, does not include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.

A case in which the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) does not criminalize gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take.

A case in which the Court held that a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge so long as other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause.

A case in which the Court held that the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

A case in which the Court held that a corporation’s contractual obligation to redeem shares is not necessarily a liability that reduces a corporation’s value for purposes of the federal estate tax.

A case in which the Court was asked to resolve a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.

A case in which the Court held that the 60-day filing deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) is not jurisdictional.

A case in which the Court held that the Indian Health Service must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties.

A case in which the Court will decide whether to approve a consent decree resolving claims among Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico over the delivery of water from the Rio Grande Basin to Elephant Butte.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the probable-cause exception in Nieves v. Barlett can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened; and whether Nieves is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.

A case in which the Court held that an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” that may object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

A case in which the Court held that in a prosecution for drug trafficking—where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs—Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters.

A case in which the Court permitted the National Rifle Association's lawsuit to proceed where it plausibly alleged that the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether the government’s requests to large social media companies that they take steps to prevent the dissemination of purported misinformation constituted coercion and thus transformed those private companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated users’ First Amendment rights.

A case in which the Court held that a bump stock device is not a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).

A case in which the Court held that, when parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, a court must decide whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation.

A case in which the Court held that, because the relevant rules a time-related directive, a district court can enter a criminal forfeiture order when the time limit specified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has already passed.

A case in which the Court clarified the test for whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state laws to national banks.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a state law restricting social media platforms from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech and requiring them to submit to onerous operational and disclosure requirements violates the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether Florida S.B. 7072’s content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment and whether the law’s individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred.

A case in which the Court stayed the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan, for failure to adequately explain its emissions reduction requirements, likely violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency's rule first causes harm to the plaintiff.

A case in which the Court held that a worker need not be employed by a company in the transportation industry to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

A case in which the Court held that Congress alone must decide whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies an individual from running for the office of President.

A case in which the Court overruled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

A case in which the Court overruled its decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

A case in which the Court held that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K cannot support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress directly under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action, but it concluded that it did not need to resolve that question to dispose of this case.

A case in which the Court held that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is triggered when the prosecution in a criminal trial seeks to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst.

A case in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions.

A case in which the Court held that the U.S. Trustee was not required to issue refunds for the extra fees paid by debtors in certain districts to address the lack of uniformity identified in Siegel v. Fitzgerald; prospective parity is the appropriate remedy.

A case in which the Court held that respondent’s claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are not moot because the government's declaration stating that he “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information” did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future.

A case in which the Court held that the government provides adequate notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document lacking the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information.

A case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions that cause some harm, not merely "significant" harm.

A case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power under the 16th Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violates the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

A case in which the Court held that an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

A case in which the Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was found by a jury to be not guilty by reason of insanity.

A case in which the Court held that a state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that conviction.

A case in which the Court held that a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service is entitled to receive all of the education benefits at once from programs associated with both periods of service.

A case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, does not violate the Second Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social media account, which the official uses to communicate about job-related matters with the public.

A case in which the Court held that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.

A case in which the Court held that in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing.

A case in which the Court held that South Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan does not constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

A case in which the Court held that under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower need not prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief to succeed on a retaliation claim, only that his protected activity was a “contributing factor” of the unfavorable personnel action.

A case in which the Court held that under federal admiralty law, choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions not applicable in this case.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a civil rights “tester” has Article III standing to challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act a hotel’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website.

A case in which the Court upheld the funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as consistent with the Appropriations Clause.

A case in which the Court held that a defendant must satisfy individually each of the three conditions of the “safety valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1) to be eligible for sentencing relief.

A case in which the Court held that taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

A case in which the Court held that a foreign plaintiff with no alleged connection to the United States can state a cognizable claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act if the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States.

A case in which the Court held the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress’s intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes.

A case in which the Court held that a party need not reassert in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment in order to preserve it for appeal.

A case in which the Court held that, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement.

A case in which the Court held the scienter element of a claim under the False Claims Act pertains to the defendant’s contemporaneous subjective understanding or beliefs about the lawfulness of its conduct, not the objective reasonableness of such belief.

A case in which the Court held that Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.

A case in which the Court held that Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 require plaintiffs to plead and prove that they bought shares registered under the registration statement they claim is misleading.

A case in which the Court held that Virginia’s offense of accessory after the fact to a felony is an offense relating to obstruction of justice under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

A case in which the Court held that admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on context does not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the exception in I.R.C. § 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) to the notice requirements for an Internal Revenue Service summons on third-party recordkeepers applies to a summons for anyone’s records whenever the IRS thinks that person’s records might somehow help it collect a delinquent taxpayer’s liability.

A case in which the Court held that the Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district.

A case in which the Court held that a federal criminal sentencing law gives the court flexibility to decide between consecutive and concurrent sentences for a man who was convicted and sentenced for his role in a drug-trafficking-related murder.

A case in which the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i)’s prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law and is not unconstitutionally overbroad.

A case in which the Court held that two of Amgen’s patents do not satisfy the Patent Act’s enablement clause because they do not describe the invention with sufficient particularity that would enable a “skilled artisan” to “make and use” the claimed invention.

A case in which the Court held that humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s likelihood-of-confusion analysis.

A case in which the Court held that a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration requires the district court to stay its proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is pending.

A case in which the Court held that the Lanham Act does not permit the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark to recover damages for the use of that trademark when the infringement occurred outside the United States and is not likely to cause confusion in the United States.

A case in which the Court held that the 1868 treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation but did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe.

A case in which the Court held that New Jersey can unilaterally withdraw from an interstate compact with New York that created a waterfront commission with police power.

A case in which the Court was asked to consider a challenge to the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan.

A case in which the Court held that the Secretary of Education does not have the authority under the HEROES Act to cancel roughly $430 billion in student debt.

A case in which the Court held that a person commits “aggravated identity theft,” if he “uses” another person’s means of identification “in relation to” a predicate offense when the use is at the crux of—rather than merely peripheral to—what makes the conduct criminal.

A case in which the Court held an internet platform does not “knowingly” provide substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use, and that an internet platform whose services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff cannot be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields internet platforms from liability when their algorithms target users and recommend a third party’s content.

A case in which the Court held that an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit seeking compensatory damages for the denial of a free and appropriate education may proceed without exhausting the administrative processes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act because the remedy sought is not one IDEA provides.

A case in which the Court held that U.S. district courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and that such entities are not immune from criminal prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

A case in which the Court held that a federal immigration law does not bar a federal court of appeals from reviewing an immigrant’s claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals had engaged in impermissible factfinding simply because the immigrant had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider, which is a discretionary form of review.

A case in which the Court held the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA)’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA does not abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims.

A case in which the Court held that the National Labor Relations Act does not preempt a state-court lawsuit against a union for intentionally destroying an employer’s property during a labor dispute.

A case in which the Court held that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies, also empowers it to regulate the labor practices of state militias.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege when obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication.

A case in which the Court rejected the “Independent State Legislature” (ISL) theory—that only a state legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, notwithstanding state courts or constitutional constraints.

A case in which the Court held that when an individual brings a lawsuit on behalf of the government alleging fraud on the United States, the government has the power to dismiss the lawsuit whenever it intervenes in the case, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) governs that procedure.

A case in which the Court held that a bankruptcy debtor can be held liable for another person’s fraud, even when they were not aware of the fraud.

A case in which the Court held that Bankruptcy Code Section 363(m) does not limit the jurisdiction of appellate courts over an order approving the sale of a debtor’s assets but instead simply limits the remedies available on appeal from such an order.

A case in which the Court held that applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. ​​

A case in which the Court held that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether the Biden administration’s revised immigration policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

A case in which the Court reversed the conviction of a private citizen who was convicted of honest-services fraud on the theory that, although he held no elected office or government employment, he had informal political or other influence over governmental decisionmaking, and thus owed a fiduciary duty to the general public.

A case in which the Court held the Second Circuit’s “right to control” theory of fraud, which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person’s economic decision as a species of property fraud, cannot state a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statute.

A case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

A case in which the Court held that a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations confers general personal jurisdiction over the registrant.

A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff may sue under Section 1983 for violation of rights secured by legislation enacted under Congress's Spending Clause power, in this case, the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act.

A case in which the Court held that a federal district court has jurisdiction to consider claims challenging the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative proceedings.

A case in which the Court held that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the Federal Trade Commission’s structure, procedure, and existence.

A case in which the Court held that a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act is the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), notwithstanding the number of individual accounts that were not properly reported.

A case in which the Court held that the saving clause in 28 U. S. C. §2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in the interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a habeas petition under § 2241.

A case in which the Court held the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that a state rule of criminal procedure precluded post-conviction relief is not an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment against him.

A case in which the Court overruled its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger to hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.

A case in which the Court overruled its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger to hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.

A case in which the Court held that daily-rate workers, of whatever income level, qualify as paid on a salary basis only if they satisfy three conditions outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A case in which the Court held that Andy Warhol Foundation's commercial use of artwork derived from Lynn Goldsmith's copyrighted photograph of the musician Prince lacked transformative value and thus weighed against fair use.

A case in which the Court held that the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any appeals, rather than as soon as the state trial court denies DNA testing.

A case in which the Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of a challenge to a California law restricting the sale of pork within the state in a way that affects most or all commercial out-of-state farms.

A case in which the Court held the one-year filing deadline for veterans to submit disability claims after they are discharged is not subject to principles of equitable tolling, meaning that missing the filing deadline forfeits retroactive disability benefits.

A case in which the Court held that Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

A case in which the Court held that wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act only if they have a continuous surface connection with traditional navigable waters.

A case in which the Court held that the Federal Disposition Act applies to unclaimed or uncashed checks issued by MoneyGram Payments Systems, and thus that they must be returned to the state where they were purchased.

A case in which the Court held that a state has concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes against Natives on Native American lands.

A case in which the Court held a transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not “necessary or appropriate in aid of” a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief.

A case in which the Court held that the Biden administration properly rescinded Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they await hearing in U.S. immigration court.

A case in which the Court held that Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the procedural vehicle appropriate for a prisoner’s method-of-execution claim even if an order granting the relief requested would necessitate a change in state law.

A case in which the Court held that a public school’s attempt to avoid an Establishment Clause claim by forbidding a coach from praying with students during and after a game violates the coach’s free speech and free exercise rights.

A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff may not state a claim for relief against a law enforcement officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the officer’s failure to provide Miranda warnings.

A case in which the Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) authorizes relief based on a district court’s error of law.

A case in which the Court held that “clear and unmistakable error,” in the context of a veteran’s challenge of a denial of benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs, does not include the invalidation of a VA regulation.

A case in which the Court held that a state worker’s compensation law that applies exclusively to certain federal workers violates the principle of intergovernmental immunity.