U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Announcements

A case in which the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.

A case in which the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.

A case in which the Court vacated the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirming the drunk-driving convictions of petitioner Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious, and remanded the case.

A case in which the Court held that the Secretary of Commerce did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district court was warranted in remanding the case to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision.

A case in which the Court vacated the Tenth Circuit’s decision holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), which imposes a mandatory minimum punishment on a criminal defendant upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant engaged in certain criminal conduct while under supervised release, violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

A case in which the Court held that Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, are not overruled.

A case in which the Court held that a state’s regulation of liquor sales by granting licenses only to individuals or entities that have resided in-state for a specified time violates the dormant Commerce Clause and is not saved by the Twenty-First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that punitive damages are not available to a Jones Act seaman in a personal injury lawsuit alleging a breach of the general maritime duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.

A case in which the Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks, in Section 2(a), violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the subsection-specific definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)—which applies only in the limited context of a federal criminal prosecution for possessing, using or carrying a firearm in connection with acts comprising such a crime—is unconstitutionally vague.

A case in which the Court held that where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).

A case in which the Court held that a government violates the Takings Clause when it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may bring a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at that time; the state-litigation requirement set forth in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), is overruled.

A case in which the Court held that the “knowingly” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime.

A case in which the Court held that the trial court in this case committed clear error at Flowers’ sixth murder trial by concluding that the state’s peremptory strike of a particular black prospective juror was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent.

A case in which the Court held that the presence of in-state beneficiaries alone does not empower a state to tax trust income that has not been distributed to the beneficiaries where the beneficiaries have no right to demand that income and are uncertain to receive it.

A case in which the Court held that Fourth Circuit did not properly consider preliminary issues that determine whether a district court must accept the Federal Communication Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

A case in which the Court held that the display and maintenance of a large memorial cross by a local government does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the display and maintenance of a large memorial cross by a local government does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit, below, that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation of authority to the U.S. Attorney General to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913 is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

A case in which the Court held that the statute of limitations for the petitioner’s § 1983 fabricated evidence claim began to run when the criminal proceedings against him terminated in his favor—that is, when he was acquitted at the end of his second trial.

A case in which the Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit's decision that the federal Atomic Energy Act does not preempt a Virginia ban on non-federal uranium mining.

A case in which the Court held that Manhattan Community Access Corp, which operates public access channels, is not a state actor subject to constitutional liability.

A case in which the Court upheld its “separate sovereigns” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether the district court in this case erred in finding that (1) race predominated over traditional districting factors in the construction of 11 districts, and (2) the Virginia House of Delegates did not satisfy its burden of showing the use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest of compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court instead dismissed the appeal, holding that the House of Delegates lacked standing to appeal the invalidation of Virginia’s redistricting plan.

A case in which the Court held that under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the federal government is not a “person” capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings.

A case in which the Court held that Michigan’s third-degree home-invasion statute substantially corresponds to or is narrower than generic burglary for purposes of qualifying for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

A case in which the Court held that because the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act establishes the federal government's exclusive control over outer continental shelf, state law may be adopted as the rule of decision only if there is a gap in federal law.

A case in which the Court vacated a policy change of the US Department of Health and Human Services for failing to provide notice and an opportunity to comment before implementing a rule changing its Medicare reimbursement formula.

A case in which the Court held that pretrial detention later credited as time served for a new conviction tolls a supervised-release term under 18 U.S.C. §3624(e), even if the court must make the tolling calculation after learning whether the time will be credited.

A case in which the Court held that a creditor may be held in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy court’s discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.

A case in which the Court held that Title VII’s administrative-exhaustion requirement is a waivable claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.

A case in which the Court held that the presence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A case in which the Court held that neither the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, nor the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b), permits removal to federal court by a third-party counterclaim defendant.

A case in which the Court held that the decision of the Appeals Council—the administrative body that hears a claimant’s appeal of an adverse decision of an administrative law judge regarding a disability benefit claim—to reject a disability claim on the ground that the claimant’s appeal was untimely is a “final decision” subject to judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

A case in which the Court held that in bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor’s rejection of a license agreement has the same effect as breach of that contract outside the bankruptcy context and thus cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.

A case in which the Court held that “clear evidence” that the FDA would not have approved a change to a drug’s label—thus pre-empting a state-law failure-to-warn claim—is evidence showing that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning. The Court further held that the question of agency disapproval is primarily one of law for a judge, not a jury, to decide.

A case in which the Court held that Wyoming’s admission to the Union did not abrogate the Crow Tribe of Indians’ 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States,” and the lands of the Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically “occupied” when the forest was created.

A case in which the Court held that a state cannot be sued in the courts of another state without its consent, overruling Nevada v. Hall.

A case in which the Court held that consumers may sue for antitrust damages any party who delivers goods to them (in this case, Apple), even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties (in this case, app developers) who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.

A case in which the Court held that a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may rely on the statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene, but the relator does not constitute an “official of the United States” for purposes of that section.

A case in which the Court held that statute that waives the Tennessee Valley Authority’s sovereign immunity from suit by making it a “sue-and-be-sued” type entity is not subject to a discretionary function exception of the kind in the Federal Tort Claims Act but may be subject to an implied restriction as recognized in Federal Housing Authority v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 (1940).

A case in which the Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held, in contrast to the holdings of five other federal appellate courts, that Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 supports an inferred private right of action based on the negligent misstatement or omission made in connection with a tender offer.

A case in which the Court held that a vocational expert’s testimony may constitute “substantial evidence” of “other work” even if the expert does not provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.

A case in which the Court clarified the evidentiary burden for a death-row prisoner seeking an alternative method of execution and held that the prisoner in this case failed to meet that burden.

A case in which the Court will held that dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud falls within the scope of Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) even if the disseminator did not “make” the statements as defined by the Court’s precedent.

A case in which the Court resolved a circuit split in holding that plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act must serve the foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) by mail addressed and dispatched to the head of the foreign state's ministry of foreign affairs in the foreign state, not at the foreign state's embassy in the United States.

A case in which the Court held that Alaska’s Nation River is not public land and that, like all non-public lands and navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, the Nation River is exempt under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act from the National Park Service’s regulatory authority.

A case in which the Court held that a business engaged in no more than non-judicial foreclosure proceedings is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, except for one limited purpose as defined within the Act.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”

A case in which the Court held that a noncitizen released from criminal custody does not become exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) if, after the noncitizen is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take the noncitizen into immigration custody immediately.