A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater.
A case in which the Court will resolve a circuit split as to whether under federal maritime law a safe-berth clause in a voyage charter contract is a guarantee of a ship’s safety (as the Second Circuit and Third Circuit, below, held) or a duty of due diligence (as the Fifth Circuit has held).
A case in which the Court will decide whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] . . . inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) expressly preempts states from using information provided on a federal Form I-9 in a prosecution of any person when the same information also appears in non-IRCA documents; and (2) whether the Act impliedly preempts Kansas’s prosecution of the respondents in this case.
A group of cases in which the Court will decide the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s appointments (without their being confirmed by the Senate) to the oversight board created to help Puerto Rico recover from its substantial indebtedness.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 will decide whether the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a).
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 under the international organizations have the immunity that foreign governments enjoy at present, as described in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, not the immunity they enjoyed at the time the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 was enacted.
A case in which the Court held that the “right to travel” provision of the Yakama Treaty of 1855 (between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians) preempts the state’s fuel tax as applied to Cougar Den’s importation of fuel by public highway for sale within the reservation.
A case in which the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not permit a court to resolve a question of arbitrability when the parties to the contract at issue delegated such questions to an arbitrator.
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.
A case in which the Court held that a state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(b)(i), even though that offense requires only slight force to overcome resistance.
A case in which the Court held that (1) a court, not an arbitrator, must determine the applicability of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, and (2) under that provision, the term “contracts of employment” includes independent contractor agreements.
A case in which the Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a state from executing a prisoner who due to mental disability cannot remember committing his crime, but it does prohibit executing a prisoner who cannot rationally understand the reasons for his execution, whether that inability is due to psychosis or dementia.