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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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).