The docket

One hundred decisions.

The Supreme Court's hundred most recent decisions — January 15, 2025 through June 23, 2026 — restated in plain language, with every vote drawn and each case mapped to the political primitives it quietly answers. Cases and votes from the Supreme Court Database and Oyez.

How the hundred split

9–0

8–0

8–1

7–2

6–2

6–3

5–4

4–4

The primitives at stake

A7 Power-restraint

A9 Retributive desert

A2 Externalities

A3 Solidarity

A8 Precaution vs. permission

A1 Paternalism

A4 Moral circle

A6 Group-conscious rules

A5 Tradition

A10 Desert

A11 Personhood

48 unanimous

14 decided by a single vote

73 touch a political primitive

October Term 2025

№ 001

June 23, 2026

No. 23-1197

Religious Hair in Prison

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections

Can prison officials be sued personally for shaving a Rastafarian inmate's hair?

Damon Landor, a Rastafarian who vowed never to cut his hair, was forcibly shaved at a Louisiana prison despite prior accommodations elsewhere. He sued prison officials for money damages under a federal religious-freedom law. The Court ruled state prison officials cannot be sued in their personal capacity for damages under that law.

Prison officials can't be sued personally for damages under religious freedom law.

A5TraditionA7Power-restraintReligionPrisons

MajorityDissent

№ 002

June 18, 2026

No. 24-1234

Marijuana Users and Guns

United States v. Hemani

Can the federal government bar regular drug users from owning firearms?

Ali Danial Hemani was charged for possessing a gun while being a regular user of marijuana and other drugs, though not using at the time. The Court ruled the federal ban on firearm possession by drug users violates the Second Amendment without a showing the person is dangerous.

Regular drug users can't be automatically barred from owning guns.

A1PaternalismA2ExternalitiesGunsDrugs

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 003

June 18, 2026

No. 24-1063

The Plea Deal Appeal Trap

Hunter v. United States

Can a defendant appeal a sentence they agreed not to challenge in a plea deal?

Munson Hunter signed a plea deal waiving his right to appeal, then challenged a condition requiring him to take mental health medication. The Court ruled an appeal waiver can be set aside when enforcing it would produce a miscarriage of justice.

Appeal waivers can be voided when they would cause a miscarriage of justice.

Criminal sentencingPlea deals

MajorityDissent

№ 004

June 18, 2026

No. 25-197

Challenging a State Court Order

T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation

Can you ask a federal court to overturn a state court order still being appealed?

T.M. was released from a psychiatric hospital after agreeing to conditions in state court, then sued in federal court claiming the agreement was coerced. The Court ruled federal courts cannot review state court judgments even while an appeal is still pending in state court.

Federal courts can't review state judgments during ongoing state appeals.

Mental healthCourts

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 005

June 11, 2026

No. 24-345

Mutual Fund Voting Rights

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.

Can investors sue to undo voting restrictions on mutual fund shares?

Saba Capital sued closed-end funds that stripped voting rights from shareholders owning 10% or more, arguing the restrictions violated federal investment law. The Court ruled only the SEC can enforce these violations, not private investors seeking to cancel the provisions.

Only the SEC can enforce investment company act violations, not private investors.

A7Power-restraintInvestmentsSecurities

MajorityDissent

№ 006

June 11, 2026

No. 25-6

Hidden Lawsuits in Bankruptcy

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Incorporated

Does failing to disclose a lawsuit in bankruptcy automatically bar you from pursuing it?

Thomas Keathley filed for bankruptcy but didn't disclose a personal injury lawsuit against Buddy Ayers Construction. The company argued he should be barred from pursuing the claim. The Court ruled courts must examine all circumstances, not just assume bad faith from a possible motive to hide it.

Undisclosed claims aren't automatically barred based on motive alone.

A10DesertBankruptcyPersonal injury

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 007

June 11, 2026

No. 25-5146

Where to Try a Crime

Abouammo v. United States

Can a defendant be tried in a district where no part of the crime actually happened?

Ahmad Abouammo falsified a document in Seattle during an FBI interview about leaking Twitter user data to Saudi Arabia. Prosecutors tried the case in San Francisco where the FBI office was located. The Court ruled trials must happen where the criminal act occurred.

Criminal trials must be held where the offense actually occurred.

Criminal procedureEspionage

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 008

June 4, 2026

No. 25-406

FCC Fines Without a Jury

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.

Does the FCC need a jury trial before fining a company for privacy violations?

The FCC fined AT&T $57 million for sharing customer location data without proper consent, through an agency process with no hearing or jury. The Court ruled the Seventh Amendment doesn't require a jury at that stage because the order doesn't create a binding obligation until a separate lawsuit.

The FCC need not involve a jury when issuing forfeiture orders.

A7Power-restraintPrivacyTelecom

MajorityDissent

№ 009

June 4, 2026

No. 25-466

Fraud Profits Without Victim Loss

Sripetch v. SEC

Must the SEC prove investors lost money before seizing a fraudster's profits?

Ongkaruck Sripetch ran penny-stock pump-and-dump schemes and consented to pay $2.25 million in disgorgement. He argued the SEC couldn't order it without proving investors were harmed. The Court ruled the SEC can recover ill-gotten gains without showing financial losses to investors.

SEC can seek disgorgement without proving investors lost money.

A9Retributive desertSecurities fraudInvestors

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 010

June 4, 2026

No. 24-889

Generic Drug Marketing Limits

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.

Can a generic drugmaker be sued for patent infringement based on how it advertises?

Hikma sought FDA approval for a generic version of Vascepa but excluded a patented use from its label. Amarin sued claiming Hikma's press releases and marketing encouraged doctors to use the generic for the patented heart-disease indication. The Court ruled standard industry language and legally required labeling don't count as actively encouraging patent infringement.

Standard generic drug marketing doesn't actively induce patent infringement.

A8Precaution vs. permissionPharmaceuticalsPatents

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 011

May 28, 2026

No. 24-556

Innocence and Early Release

Fernandez v. United States

Can prisoners use compassionate release to challenge their conviction?

Joe Fernandez, serving a mandatory life sentence for a 2000 murder-for-hire, sought compassionate release citing possible innocence and unfair sentencing compared to co-defendants. The Court ruled prisoners must use habeas corpus law, not compassionate release, to challenge the validity of their convictions.

Conviction challenges must go through habeas corpus, not compassionate release.

A9Retributive desertCriminal sentencingPrison reform

MajorityDissent

№ 012

May 28, 2026

No. 24-820

Old Sentences New Laws

Rutherford v. United States

Can outdated mandatory minimums justify early release under compassionate release?

Daniel Rutherford was sentenced to nearly 42 years for armed robberies under mandatory minimums that later changed. He sought compassionate release based on the sentencing disparity. The Court ruled a gap created by non-retroactive law changes can't qualify as an extraordinary reason for early release.

Non-retroactive sentencing changes can't justify compassionate release.

A9Retributive desertCriminal sentencingPrison reform

MajorityDissent

№ 013

May 28, 2026

No. 24-935

Local Drivers and Arbitration

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock

Can delivery drivers who never cross state lines still escape forced arbitration?

Angelo Brock sued Flowers Foods claiming he was misclassified as an independent contractor rather than an employee. Flowers tried to force arbitration, but Brock argued he qualified for an exemption for transportation workers in interstate commerce. The Court ruled local delivery drivers handling goods on an interstate journey qualify for that exemption even if they never cross state lines.

Local drivers on interstate routes are exempt from forced arbitration.

A7Power-restraintLaborArbitration

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 014

May 28, 2026

No. 24-7351

Striking Black Jurors

Pitchford v. Cain

Did a death row defendant lose his chance to challenge racially motivated jury strikes?

Terry Pitchford was sentenced to death after prosecutors struck four of five Black prospective jurors. The trial court cut off his lawyer's attempt to argue the reasons were pretext. The Court ruled the state court unreasonably found he waived that challenge when he was prevented from completing the process.

Defendant didn't waive his challenge to racially motivated jury strikes.

A6Group-conscious rulesA9Retributive desertDeath penaltyJury selectionRace

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 015

May 21, 2026

No. 23-1209

Pension Exit Bills

M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund

Can a pension plan use new financial assumptions to inflate a departing employer's bill?

M&K left a union pension fund and received a $6 million withdrawal bill calculated with assumptions adopted after the plan year's end. The Court ruled ERISA allows pension plans to use actuarial assumptions selected after the statutory measurement date when calculating what departing employers owe.

Pension plans may use assumptions created after the measurement date.

A3SolidarityPensionsLabor

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 016

May 21, 2026

No. 24-872

IQ Tests and the Death Penalty

Hamm v. Smith

How should courts weigh multiple IQ scores when deciding intellectual disability?

Joseph Smith sought to overturn his Alabama death sentence by arguing intellectual disability. Multiple IQ tests placed him near or within the disability range, and lower courts used a holistic analysis. The Court dismissed the case without deciding, finding it wasn't the right vehicle for new guidance on evaluating multiple IQ scores.

The Court dismissed the case without issuing a ruling.

A9Retributive desertA11PersonhoodDeath penaltyIntellectual disability

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 017

May 14, 2026

No. 24-1238

Negligent Truck Brokers

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC

Can states sue freight brokers for negligently hiring unsafe trucking companies?

Shawn Montgomery was injured when a truck hit his tractor-trailer on an Illinois highway. He sued the freight broker that arranged the shipment, claiming negligent hiring. The Court ruled federal law doesn't block state negligent-hiring lawsuits against transportation brokers.

States can sue freight brokers for negligently hiring unsafe carriers.

A2ExternalitiesTruckingPersonal injury

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 018

April 29, 2026

No. 24-781

Donor Privacy and Subpoenas

First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin

Can a pro-life group challenge a state subpoena for donor records in federal court?

New Jersey investigators subpoenaed First Choice Women's Resource Centers for documents including donor information during a probe of its websites and medical claims. The Court ruled the subpoena immediately harmed the group's First Amendment associational rights, giving it standing to challenge it in federal court.

Donor subpoenas cause immediate harm allowing federal court challenge.

A7Power-restraintFree speechAbortionDonor privacy

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 019

April 29, 2026

No. 24-109

Louisiana's Second Black District

Louisiana v. Callais

Did Louisiana unconstitutionally use race when drawing a second majority-Black district?

Louisiana created a second majority-Black congressional district after a court found its prior map likely violated the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs argued the new map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court ruled the Voting Rights Act didn't require the district, so using race lacked a compelling interest.

Louisiana's second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

A6Group-conscious rulesRedistrictingVoting rightsRace

MajorityDissent

№ 020

April 22, 2026

No. 24-783

Moving Lawsuits to Federal Court

Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel

Can judges extend the 30-day deadline to move a case from state to federal court?

Enbridge removed Michigan's lawsuit over the Line 5 oil pipeline to federal court after nearly two years of state proceedings. The Court ruled the 30-day deadline for removal is mandatory and judges cannot extend it for fairness reasons even when equitable tolling might seem justified.

The 30-day removal deadline cannot be extended by judges.

CourtsPipelineEnvironmental law

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 021

April 22, 2026

No. 24-924

Contractors in War Zones

Hencely v. Fluor Corporation

Can an injured soldier sue a military contractor for mistakes the Army never approved?

Army Specialist Winston Hencely was badly wounded when a Taliban-linked worker at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan detonated a suicide vest during a Veterans Day race. Hencely sued Fluor Corporation, which ran base services, claiming negligent hiring and supervision. The Court ruled that state lawsuits can proceed when the government did not order or authorize the conduct that caused the harm.

State lawsuits may proceed when the government did not authorize the harmful conduct.

A7Power-restraintMilitary contractorsTort law

MajorityDissent

№ 022

April 17, 2026

No. 24-813

Wartime Oil in Court

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

Can oil companies move coastal pollution lawsuits to federal court because of WWII fuel contracts?

Louisiana parishes sued Chevron and other oil companies for decades of coastal damage under state environmental law. The companies argued they could move the cases to federal court because some oil fed World War II government contracts. The Court held that a close tie to federal wartime duties is enough to allow that move.

Federal court removal allowed when conduct closely ties to federal duties.

Oil industryFederal courts

MajorityDissent

Unanimous — Alito recused

№ 023

March 31, 2026

No. 24-539

Talk Therapy and Identity

Chiles v. Salazar

Can Colorado ban counselors from using talk therapy to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity?

Licensed counselor Kaley Chiles challenged Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors, saying it blocked her faith-based talk therapy. The Court held the law discriminates by viewpoint—it allows therapy supporting gender transition but forbids therapy aimed at changing orientation or identity—and violates the First Amendment as applied to her practice.

Colorado's conversion therapy ban violates the First Amendment as applied to talk therapy.

A1PaternalismA5TraditionFree speechLGBTQ rights

MajorityDissent

№ 024

March 25, 2026

No. 24-171

Internet Piracy Liability

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment

Is an internet provider liable for piracy just because it knew users were infringing?

Sony and other record labels sued Cox Communications after subscribers used its network to share copyrighted songs, despite thousands of infringement notices. A jury had awarded $1 billion, finding Cox contributorily liable. The Court ruled that knowing about piracy and failing to cut off service is not enough without proof Cox encouraged infringement or tailored its service to it.

Knowing about piracy without encouraging it does not make an ISP liable.

A7Power-restraintCopyrightInternet

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 025

March 25, 2026

No. 24-1056

Fleeing Supervised Release

Rico v. United States

Does a fugitive's supervised release term automatically pause while she is on the run?

Isabel Rico fled while serving federal supervised release and was caught years later. A judge revoked her release and added prison time, treating her term as if it had kept running. The Court held Congress set fixed limits on supervised release and did not authorize an automatic extension when someone absconds.

Supervised release does not automatically extend when a defendant absconds.

A9Retributive desertSentencingSupervised release

MajorityDissent

№ 026

March 20, 2026

No. 24-993

Preaching After a Conviction

Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi

Can a preacher sue to block a protest law even after he was already fined under it?

Gabriel Olivier preached outside a Mississippi concert with a loudspeaker and was cited under a city ordinance restricting protests. After paying his fine, he sued to stop future enforcement, but lower courts said a prior case barred him. The Court ruled he could still seek a forward-looking court order blocking the law, even if winning would imply his conviction was unconstitutional.

A prior conviction does not block suits seeking to stop future enforcement.

Free speechProtest

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 027

March 4, 2026

No. 24-777

What Counts as Persecution

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi

Must appeals courts defer to immigration officials on whether harm qualifies as persecution?

Salvadoran citizen Douglas Urias-Orellana sought asylum after his family faced repeated threats and violence from a local hitman. Immigration officials denied his claim, finding the harm did not amount to persecution. The Court ruled appeals courts must defer to that judgment unless no reasonable official could have reached the same conclusion.

Appeals courts must defer to immigration agencies on persecution findings.

A4Moral circleA7Power-restraintImmigrationAsylum

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 028

March 4, 2026

No. 24-1021

Suing Across State Lines

Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp.

Is New Jersey Transit shielded from lawsuits in Pennsylvania as an arm of the state?

Cedric Galette sued New Jersey Transit after a crash in Philadelphia injured him as a passenger. NJ Transit claimed it was an arm of New Jersey and immune from suit in another state. The Court held it is a separate corporation that pays its own debts, so it cannot claim the state's immunity in Pennsylvania courts.

New Jersey Transit is not an arm of the state for interstate immunity.

Sovereign immunityTransit

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 029

February 25, 2026

No. 24-557

Coaching on the Stand

Villarreal v. Texas

Can a judge stop a defendant and his lawyer from talking about testimony overnight?

Texas murder defendant David Villarreal testified in his own defense and was barred from discussing his ongoing testimony with counsel during an overnight break. He argued this violated his right to counsel. The Court ruled judges may forbid testimony coaching during such a recess while still allowing other lawyer-client discussions.

Judges may ban testimony coaching but not all lawyer contact overnight.

Criminal trialsRight to counsel

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 030

February 25, 2026

No. 24-758

Detention Center Labor Claims

The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal

Can a private jail operator immediately appeal when a court rejects its government-contract defense?

Immigration detainees sued GEO Group over mandatory cleaning and $1-a-day voluntary work at a Colorado detention center. GEO tried to appeal immediately after a judge rejected its claim that it acted under government direction. The Court held that defense can be raised at trial and appealed later—it is not the kind of immunity that allows a mid-case appeal.

Rejecting a government-contractor defense before trial is not immediately appealable.

Immigration detentionAppeals

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 031

February 24, 2026

No. 24-351

Mail That Never Arrives

United States Postal Service v. Konan

Can the Postal Service be sued when workers deliberately refuse to deliver someone's mail?

Black property owner Lebene Konan sued the Postal Service after employees allegedly locked her mailbox and marked her mail undeliverable despite confirming she owned the property. She claimed racial discrimination caused lost rent and disrupted communications. The Court held a federal law barring suits over lost or miscarried mail also blocks claims when delivery is intentionally withheld.

Federal law shields the Postal Service even from intentional nondelivery claims.

A6Group-conscious rulesA7Power-restraintPostal serviceCivil rights

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 032

February 24, 2026

No. 24-724

Baby Food in Federal Court

Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist

Must a federal trial verdict be thrown out if the case never belonged in federal court?

The Palmquists sued Hain Celestial and Whole Foods over heavy metals in Earth's Best baby food linked to their son Ethan's developmental problems. A federal court dismissed Whole Foods to keep the case, tried it, and ruled for Hain. The Court held that mistaken removal cannot create jurisdiction—when an appeals court restored Whole Foods, the entire federal verdict had to be vacated.

A federal verdict must be vacated when diversity jurisdiction was never valid.

Federal courtsProduct liability

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 033

February 20, 2026

No. 24-1287

Presidential Tariff Power

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

Can the president impose import tariffs using emergency economic powers without Congress?

Learning Resources and hand2mind, U.S. educational toy companies, challenged President Trump's tariffs on Chinese imports that would raise their costs from millions to over $100 million. The tariffs were imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The Court ruled only Congress holds the power to tax imports, and that law does not delegate tariff authority to the president.

Emergency economic powers do not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

A7Power-restraintTariffsPresidential power

MajorityDissent

№ 034

January 20, 2026

No. 24-440

Expert Papers to Sue

Berk v. Choy

Must federal courts enforce Delaware's rule requiring an expert affidavit to file a malpractice suit?

Harold Berk sued three Delaware healthcare providers for negligent ankle care but failed to file the expert affidavit Delaware requires for medical malpractice cases. Delaware treats that requirement as mandatory, and state courts dismissed his case. The Court held the state rule conflicts with federal pleading rules and does not apply in federal court.

Delaware's mandatory expert affidavit rule does not apply in federal court.

Medical malpracticeFederal courts

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 035

January 20, 2026

No. 24-482

Restitution and Old Sentences

Ellingburg v. United States

Is court-ordered restitution to crime victims a criminal punishment under the Constitution?

Holsey Ellingburg, convicted of bank robbery in 1996, argued that applying newer restitution rules with longer payment periods and mandatory interest violated the ban on retroactive punishment. Lower courts upheld continued enforcement of his restitution order. The Court ruled restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is a criminal punishment, not merely a civil remedy.

Mandatory victim restitution is criminal punishment under the Constitution.

A9Retributive desertSentencingRestitution

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 036

January 20, 2026

No. 24-808

Challenging a Void Judgment

Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton

Is there any time limit to undo a default judgment that was never properly served?

Coney Island Auto Parts was hit with a bankruptcy court default judgment over unpaid invoices after being served only at a corporate address, not to an officer as rules require. Years later, when a trustee tried to seize its bank accounts, the company moved to vacate the judgment. The Court held such challenges must be filed within a reasonable time, even when the judgment is void.

Void default judgments must still be challenged within a reasonable time.

BankruptcyCivil procedure

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 037

January 14, 2026

No. 24-5774

One Gun, Two Convictions

Barrett v. United States

Can someone be convicted twice for one act of using a gun during a robbery that kills someone?

Dwayne Barrett took part in armed robberies in New York, including one where an accomplice fatally shot a victim during a cigarette-traffic heist. He was convicted under both a general gun-during-crime statute and a separate provision for firearm use causing death. The Court held Congress did not clearly authorize double convictions for a single act violating both provisions.

One act cannot support convictions under both gun statutes.

A9Retributive desertGunsSentencing

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 038

January 14, 2026

No. 24-568

Late Mail-In Ballots

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

Can a congressional candidate sue over a state rule counting mail ballots received after Election Day?

Illinois Representative Michael Bost and others challenged a state law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to arrive and be counted up to two weeks later. They argued the rule diluted votes and forced extra campaign spending on ballot monitoring. The Court held candidates have standing to challenge election counting rules in their own races regardless of electoral impact.

Candidates may challenge vote-counting rules in their own elections.

A7Power-restraintElectionsMail-in voting

MajorityDissent

№ 039

January 14, 2026

No. 24-624

Breaking In to Save a Life

Case v. Montana

Can police enter a home without a warrant when they reasonably fear someone inside is in danger?

Montana officers entered Trevor Case's home without a warrant after his ex-girlfriend reported suicide threats, gun sounds, and threats against police. They found an empty holster and what looked like a suicide note, then shot Case when he emerged from a closet. The Court held warrantless entry is allowed when officers reasonably believe an occupant faces serious or imminent injury—not only when they have criminal probable cause.

Police may enter without a warrant when they reasonably believe someone is in danger.

A7Power-restraintA1PaternalismSearch and seizureMental health

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 040

January 9, 2026

No. 24-5438

Second Chances in Court

Bowe v. United States

Do the same strict limits on repeat prison appeals apply to federal prisoners as to state prisoners?

Michael Bowe, serving time for robbery and a gun charge, repeatedly tried to reopen his sentence after Supreme Court rulings narrowed what counts as a violent crime. Lower courts blocked his latest attempt under rules meant to limit repeat challenges. The Court held those repeat-claim and certiorari-review bars apply to state habeas cases, not to federal prisoners' sentence challenges.

Repeat-appeal bars for state prisoners do not apply to federal prisoners.

SentencingPrisoners' rights

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

October Term 2024

№ 041

June 30, 2025

No. 24-809

Suing Federal Prison Guards

Goldey v. Fields

Can a federal prisoner sue prison officials for money over excessive force?

A Virginia inmate said federal prison officers beat him and sought damages. Because Congress never wrote a law allowing money suits against federal officers, he relied on a court-created remedy. The Court declined to extend that remedy to excessive-force claims, leaving such prisoners without a damages suit.

Federal inmates cannot sue prison officers for damages over excessive force.

A7Power-restraintA9Retributive desertPrisonsSuing the government

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 042

June 27, 2025

No. 24A884

The Nationwide Injunction

Trump, President of the United States v. CASA, Inc.

Can a single federal judge block a president's policy for the whole country?

After President Trump ordered an end to automatic citizenship for some U.S.-born children, lower courts froze the order nationwide. The Court held that federal judges generally cannot issue "universal injunctions" protecting people who never sued, sharply limiting a tool used against presidents of both parties. It did not decide whether the citizenship order is constitutional.

Judges generally cannot block federal policies for people who never sued.

A7Power-restraintPresidential powerCourtsImmigration

MajorityDissent

№ 043

June 27, 2025

No. 24-297

Storybooks and Opt-Outs

Mahmoud v. Taylor

Can parents pull their kids from lessons using LGBTQ storybooks on religious grounds?

A Maryland school district introduced LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks in elementary classrooms and refused to let religious parents opt their children out. The Court held that the no-opt-out policy burdens parents' religious exercise, and that they are entitled to be notified and allowed to excuse their children while the case proceeds.

Religious parents may opt children out of the storybook lessons.

A5TraditionReligionSchoolsLGBTQ

MajorityDissent

№ 044

June 27, 2025

No. 24-316

Free Preventive Care

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management

Was the panel that decides which preventive care is free legally appointed?

Obamacare requires insurers to fully cover services recommended by a federal task force of medical experts. Challengers argued the task force wields so much power its members needed presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. The Court disagreed, holding the members are properly appointed because the Health Secretary supervises and can remove them — preserving free coverage of screenings and preventive drugs.

The preventive-services task force is constitutional; free coverage stands.

A7Power-restraintA3SolidarityHealthcareFederal power

MajorityDissent

№ 045

June 27, 2025

No. 24-354

The Phone Bill Fee

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research

Can Congress let the FCC set the fee that subsidizes rural phone and internet service?

A small charge on every phone bill funds the Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes connectivity for rural areas, schools, and low-income households. Challengers said Congress handed the FCC — and a private company it uses — unchecked power to tax. The Court upheld the arrangement, finding Congress gave sufficient guidance.

The universal-service fee scheme is a lawful delegation, not an unchecked tax.

A7Power-restraintA3SolidarityFederal powerTelecom

MajorityDissent

№ 046

June 27, 2025

No. 23-1122

Age Checks for Porn Sites

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

Can a state make adults verify their age before viewing online pornography?

Texas requires porn sites to verify every visitor is an adult, which challengers said burdens grown-ups' access to legal speech and creates privacy risks. The Court upheld the law, ruling that requiring proof of age to access material obscene to minors only incidentally burdens adults and survives review.

States may require age verification for online pornography.

A1PaternalismA2ExternalitiesA8Precaution vs. permissionFree speechInternetChildren

MajorityDissent

№ 047

June 26, 2025

No. 23-1275

Medicaid and Planned Parenthood

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

Can Medicaid patients sue when a state cuts Planned Parenthood from the program?

South Carolina removed Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program, and a patient sued, invoking the federal rule that Medicaid patients may choose any qualified provider. The Court held that provision does not create a right individuals can enforce in court, so states can exclude providers without facing patient lawsuits.

Patients cannot sue over a state's exclusion of Planned Parenthood from Medicaid.

A3SolidarityA7Power-restraintHealthcareAbortionStates' rights

MajorityDissent

№ 048

June 26, 2025

No. 23-1270

The Deportation Deadline

Riley v. Bondi

When does the clock start for challenging an order sending someone to danger abroad?

A Jamaican man facing death threats from a drug kingpin sought protection from deportation, but courts said he appealed too late. The Court held the 30-day window runs from the original removal order — not the later decision on his protection claim — though the deadline is not an absolute jurisdictional bar.

The appeal clock runs from the original removal order.

A4Moral circleImmigrationCourts

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 049

June 26, 2025

No. 23-7809

DNA Testing on Death Row

Gutierrez v. Saenz

Can a death-row prisoner sue for DNA testing his prosecutors refuse to allow?

Ruben Gutierrez, sentenced to die for a Texas murder, has long sought DNA testing he says would show he never entered the victim's home. Texas courts refused, and lower federal courts said suing wouldn't help him. The Court ruled he has the right to bring his federal challenge to Texas's DNA-testing procedures.

Gutierrez may pursue his challenge to Texas's DNA-testing rules.

A9Retributive desertDeath penaltyCriminal justice

MajorityDissent

№ 050

June 26, 2025

No. 23-1002

Second Chances at Sentencing

Hewitt v. United States

Do today's shorter mandatory sentences apply when an old sentence is redone?

The First Step Act of 2018 slashed harsh mandatory minimums for stacked gun charges. The question was whether defendants originally sentenced before the Act — whose sentences were later thrown out — get the new, shorter minimums at resentencing. The Court said yes: what matters is whether a sentence is imposed after the Act.

Resentenced defendants get the First Step Act's shorter minimums.

A9Retributive desertSentencingCriminal justice

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 051

June 20, 2025

No. 24-7

Gas Sellers vs. Electric Cars

Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency

Can fuel makers sue over California's push toward electric vehicles?

The EPA let California set stricter car-emission rules that accelerate the shift to electric vehicles. Fuel producers sued, arguing the rules will cut gasoline sales. The Court held they have standing: businesses hurt by regulation of their customers can challenge it, even if automakers might comply voluntarily. The merits remain undecided.

Fuel producers may challenge California's clean-car waiver in court.

A2ExternalitiesA4Moral circleClimateCarsCourts

MajorityDissent

№ 052

June 20, 2025

No. 24-20

Terror Victims' Day in Court

Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization

Can American victims of terror attacks sue the PLO in U.S. courts?

Congress passed a law deeming the Palestine Liberation Organization subject to U.S. lawsuits if it pays imprisoned attackers' families or operates on American soil. Victims' families, including that of a U.S. student killed in Tel Aviv, sued. The Court unanimously upheld the law, letting the suits proceed.

The law letting terror victims sue the PLO is constitutional.

A4Moral circleA9Retributive desertTerrorismCourtsForeign affairs

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 053

June 20, 2025

No. 23-7483

Punishment After Prison

Esteras v. United States

When someone violates supervised release, may the judge add time as pure payback?

Edgardo Esteras violated the terms of his post-prison supervision, and the judge sent him back partly to "promote respect for the law." The Court held that in revoking supervised release, judges may consider deterrence and public safety but not retribution — Congress left that purpose off the list.

Judges may not revoke supervised release as retribution.

A9Retributive desertSentencingCriminal justice

MajorityDissent

№ 054

June 20, 2025

No. 23-1226

Who Interprets the Junk-Fax Law

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation

Must courts follow the FCC's reading of the law banning junk faxes?

A chiropractic practice sued McKesson over unwanted faxes, but an FCC order said online fax services don't count under the junk-fax law. The Court held district courts are not bound by the agency's interpretation: they must decide for themselves what the statute means, with the FCC's view earning only respectful consideration.

Courts decide the statute's meaning themselves, not the FCC.

A7Power-restraintFederal powerCourts

MajorityDissent

№ 055

June 20, 2025

No. 23-1187

Where to Fight a Vape Denial

Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.

Can vape retailers challenge the FDA's product rejections in a friendlier court?

The FDA denied R.J. Reynolds permission to keep selling flavored Vuse vapes. Reynolds teamed with Texas and Mississippi retailers to sue in the conservative Fifth Circuit rather than its home circuit. The Court held retailers who would sell the products are "adversely affected" and may sue where they are located.

Retailers may challenge FDA vape denials in their own circuits.

A1PaternalismA8Precaution vs. permissionVapingCourtsPublic health

MajorityDissent

№ 056

June 20, 2025

No. 23-997

Disability Benefits After Retirement

Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida

Does disability law protect retirees whose benefits are cut after they leave work?

Karyn Stanley, a firefighter forced to retire by Parkinson's disease, discovered her city had slashed health coverage for disability retirees. The Court held the Americans with Disabilities Act's job-discrimination rules protect people who hold or seek a job — not retirees no longer working — so her ADA claim failed.

The ADA does not cover discrimination against retirees no longer working.

A3SolidarityA6Group-conscious rulesDisabilityWorkers

MajorityDissent

№ 057

June 18, 2025

No. 23-1229

Refineries and the Ethanol Mandate

Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC

Which court hears small refineries' fights over the renewable-fuel mandate?

Small oil refineries can seek exemptions from the federal requirement to blend renewable fuels, and the EPA denied dozens at once. The question was where those denials get reviewed. The Court held the denials rest on nationwide reasoning, so challenges belong in the D.C. Circuit rather than regional courts.

Refinery-exemption denials are reviewed in the D.C. Circuit.

EnergyCourts

MajorityDissent

№ 058

June 18, 2025

No. 23-1067

Smog Plans and Home Courts

Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency

Can states challenge EPA rejections of their air-quality plans in local courts?

The EPA rejected Oklahoma's and Utah's plans for controlling smog that drifts across state lines, and the states wanted to sue near home rather than in Washington. The Court unanimously held these disapprovals are locally applicable actions, so the challenges belong in the regional circuit courts.

States may challenge their plan rejections in regional courts.

EnvironmentCourtsStates' rights

MajorityDissent

Unanimous — Alito recused

№ 059

June 18, 2025

No. 23-1300

Storing Nuclear Waste

Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas

Can Texas block a license for a nuclear-waste site it never formally opposed?

Federal regulators licensed a private facility in West Texas to store spent nuclear fuel. Texas and a landowner sued, but they had not joined the licensing proceeding. The Court held only parties to the proceeding may seek court review, throwing out the challenge without deciding whether such sites are lawful.

Nonparticipants cannot challenge the nuclear-storage license in court.

A8Precaution vs. permissionA2ExternalitiesNuclearEnvironmentCourts

MajorityDissent

№ 060

June 18, 2025

No. 23-1324

A Jury for Prisoners' Claims

Perttu v. Richards

Who decides whether a prisoner followed grievance rules — a judge or a jury?

Kyle Richards said a Michigan prison guard sexually abused him and destroyed his written complaints, then argued he couldn't be faulted for failing to exhaust the grievance process. The Court held that when that procedural question is intertwined with the merits of the suit, prisoners are entitled to have a jury decide it.

Juries decide grievance-exhaustion disputes intertwined with the merits.

A7Power-restraintA9Retributive desertPrisonsCourts

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 061

June 18, 2025

No. 23-477

Youth Gender Medicine

United States v. Skrmetti

Can states ban puberty blockers and hormones for transgender minors?

Tennessee banned puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking gender transition, and transgender teens and their families sued. The Court upheld the ban, holding it classifies by age and medical use rather than sex, and therefore needs only a rational basis — which the state's caution about unproven treatments supplied.

State bans on youth gender-transition treatment are constitutional.

A8Precaution vs. permissionA1PaternalismA6Group-conscious rulesLGBTQHealthcareChildren

MajorityDissent

№ 062

June 12, 2025

No. 24-362

The Wrong-House Raid

Martin v. United States

Can a family sue the government after the FBI raided their home by mistake?

An FBI SWAT team smashed into an Atlanta family's house at dawn — the wrong address — terrifying a mother, her partner, and her seven-year-old. Lower courts said the government was immune. The Court unanimously revived the family's lawsuit, clarifying that federal law allows such claims against the United States.

The family's lawsuit over the mistaken FBI raid may proceed.

A7Power-restraintPoliceSuing the government

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 063

June 12, 2025

No. 24-249

A Schoolgirl's Epilepsy

A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279

Must disabled students clear a higher bar than everyone else to sue their schools?

A Minnesota girl with severe epilepsy cannot attend school before noon, and her district refused evening instruction. Courts had required students to prove schools acted in "bad faith." The Court unanimously held that children suing schools over disability discrimination face the same standards as everyone else, not a stricter one.

Disabled students need not prove bad faith to sue schools.

A3SolidarityA6Group-conscious rulesDisabilitySchools

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 064

June 12, 2025

No. 24-320

Back Pay for Combat Veterans

Soto v. United States

Can the government cap how far back it pays combat-injured veterans?

Simon Soto, a Marine who developed PTSD serving in mortuary affairs in Iraq, applied late for combat-related special compensation and was paid only six years of arrears. The Court unanimously held the general six-year limit on claims against the government does not apply to this compensation, entitling veterans to full back pay.

The six-year cap does not limit combat-related compensation claims.

A3SolidarityVeteransBenefits

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 065

June 12, 2025

No. 24-416

A Vanishing Tax Dispute

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch

Can you keep fighting the IRS in Tax Court after it stops trying to collect?

The IRS moved to seize Jennifer Zuch's property over a disputed tax bill, then applied her later overpayments to the debt and dropped the seizure. The Court held that once the IRS abandons the levy, the Tax Court loses authority to hear the dispute — she must seek a refund elsewhere.

Tax Court jurisdiction ends when the IRS abandons its levy.

TaxesCourts

MajorityDissent

№ 066

June 12, 2025

No. 24-275

The Appeal That Arrived Early

Parrish v. United States

Must a litigant refile an appeal notice that arrived before the window reopened?

A former inmate's appeal notice was treated as too late because he never received the judgment, and a court reopened his appeal window — but he was told he had to file a second notice. The Court held his original notice becomes effective once the window reopens; no pointless refiling is required.

An early appeal notice takes effect when the window reopens.

Courts

MajorityDissent

№ 067

June 12, 2025

No. 23-1345

One Shot at Habeas

Rivers v. Guerrero

Does a prisoner's follow-up challenge count against the one-petition limit?

Federal law gives state prisoners essentially one federal habeas petition. A Texas inmate filed new evidence while appealing his first loss, arguing it wasn't a "second" petition. The Court unanimously held that once a district court has ruled on the first petition, later filings count as successive and face strict limits.

Filings after the first habeas ruling count as second petitions.

A9Retributive desertCriminal justiceCourts

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 068

June 5, 2025

No. 24-304

The Class Action Question

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis

Can a class action include members who were never actually harmed?

Blind patients sued Labcorp over touchscreen check-in kiosks they couldn't use, and Labcorp argued the certified class swept in people who were never injured. After argument, the Court dismissed the case without deciding it, concluding review had been granted improvidently — leaving the class-action question for another day.

Case dismissed without a decision; the question remains open.

CourtsDisability

MajorityDissent

№ 069

June 5, 2025

No. 24-154

Taxing a Catholic Charity

Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission

Can a state deny a religious tax exemption because a charity doesn't preach?

Wisconsin exempts churches from unemployment taxes but denied the exemption to Catholic Charities because it serves the disabled without proselytizing or hiring only Catholics. The Court unanimously held that favoring religions based on how they express faith violates the First Amendment's neutrality among religions.

States cannot condition religious exemptions on proselytizing.

A5TraditionReligionTaxes

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 070

June 5, 2025

No. 23-1141

Mexico Sues the Gunmakers

Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Can Mexico sue American gun manufacturers over cartel violence?

Mexico sued Smith & Wesson and other U.S. gunmakers for $10 billion, alleging they knowingly supply dealers who funnel guns to drug cartels. The Court unanimously held the suit is barred by the federal law shielding gunmakers, because Mexico did not plausibly allege the companies aided specific unlawful sales.

Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers is barred by federal law.

A2ExternalitiesA4Moral circleGunsForeign affairs

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 071

June 5, 2025

No. 23-1259

Reopening a Terror-Finance Case

Blom Bank SAL v. Honickman

How hard should it be to reopen a final judgment in a terror-financing suit?

Families of Hamas attack victims lost their suit against a Lebanese bank, then tried to reopen the final judgment after discovery rulings elsewhere. The Court unanimously held that reopening a final case requires extraordinary circumstances, a demanding bar the families' request did not meet.

Reopening final judgments requires truly extraordinary circumstances.

CourtsTerrorism

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 072

June 5, 2025

No. 23-1201

Suing a Foreign Government

CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.

Must a foreign state have U.S. ties before it can be sued in American courts?

A satellite-services company won a billion-dollar arbitration award against a company owned by India, then sought to enforce it in U.S. courts. The Court unanimously held the foreign-immunity statute does not require proving "minimum contacts" with the U.S. — if an immunity exception applies and service is proper, jurisdiction exists.

No minimum-contacts showing is required to sue foreign states.

CourtsForeign affairs

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 073

June 5, 2025

No. 23-1039

Reverse Discrimination at Work

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

Do straight or white workers face a higher bar to prove job discrimination?

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, said Ohio's youth-services agency passed her over and demoted her in favor of gay colleagues. Lower courts required majority-group plaintiffs to show extra "background circumstances." The Court unanimously held that discrimination law sets one standard for everyone, whatever their group.

Majority-group workers face no extra burden in discrimination suits.

A6Group-conscious rulesDiscriminationWorkers

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 074

May 29, 2025

No. 23-975

How Far Environmental Review Goes

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado

Must agencies study every distant ripple effect before approving a project?

Regulators approved an 88-mile Utah railway to carry crude oil, and opponents said the environmental review ignored downstream drilling and refining effects. The Court held agencies need only study the project before them — not separate projects elsewhere — and courts owe agencies substantial deference on where to draw the line.

Environmental review may stop at the project itself.

A4Moral circleA2ExternalitiesA8Precaution vs. permissionEnvironmentEnergyInfrastructure

MajorityDissent

Unanimous — Gorsuch recused

№ 075

May 22, 2025

No. 24-394

The Religious Charter School

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond

Can a state fund an openly religious public charter school?

Oklahoma approved St. Isidore of Seville, a virtual Catholic school, as the nation's first religious charter school, and the state's own attorney general sued to stop it. With Justice Barrett recused, the Court split 4–4, which leaves the Oklahoma ruling blocking the school in place and sets no national precedent.

A 4–4 tie leaves the ruling blocking the school intact.

A5TraditionReligionSchools

MajorityDissent

Equally divided — Barrett recused

№ 076

May 22, 2025

No. 23-909

Fraud Without a Loss

Kousisis v. United States

Is it federal fraud to win a contract by lying, if the work itself was fine?

A contractor won Philadelphia bridge projects by falsely claiming a disadvantaged business would share the work, then delivered the paint jobs as promised. The Court unanimously held that tricking someone into a deal with lies is wire fraud even if the victim suffered no economic loss.

Lying to win a contract is fraud even without financial loss.

A9Retributive desertFraudContracting

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 077

May 15, 2025

No. 23-1239

The Two-Second Shooting

Barnes v. Felix

Should courts judge a police shooting only by its final seconds?

Officer Roberto Felix shot Ashtian Barnes during a traffic stop as the car began to move, and lower courts looked only at the two seconds when the officer clung to the moving car. The Court unanimously rejected that "moment of threat" rule: judges must weigh the totality of the circumstances leading up to the shot.

Police shootings are judged by all the circumstances, not the final instant.

A7Power-restraintPoliceCivil rights

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 078

April 30, 2025

No. 23-861

Paychecks for Called-Up Reservists

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation

Must the government top up reservists' pay whenever they serve during an emergency?

Federal employees called to active duty during a national emergency can receive the difference between their military and civilian pay. Nick Feliciano, an air-traffic controller and Coast Guard reservist, was denied because his service wasn't tied to the emergency's specifics. The Court sided with him: serving during an emergency is enough.

Reservists serving during any national emergency get differential pay.

A3SolidarityVeteransWorkers

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 079

April 29, 2025

No. 23-715

Counting the Poorest Patients

Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy

How should Medicare count poor patients when boosting hospital payments?

Hospitals serving many low-income patients get extra Medicare money, based partly on patients "entitled to" SSI benefits. More than 200 hospitals argued the government counts too narrowly. The Court held a patient counts only if eligible for an SSI cash payment during the month of hospitalization, keeping payments lower.

Only patients eligible for SSI cash that month count toward the boost.

A3SolidarityHealthcareHospitals

MajorityDissent

№ 080

April 22, 2025

No. 23-929

A Deadline on a Sunday

Velazquez v. Bondi

If a deadline to leave the country falls on a weekend, does Monday count?

Monsalvo Velázquez agreed to leave the U.S. voluntarily within 60 days, but his deadline fell on a Saturday and he filed papers the following Monday. The Court held that, as with most legal deadlines, one that lands on a weekend or holiday extends to the next business day.

Voluntary-departure deadlines falling on weekends extend to Monday.

ImmigrationCourts

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 081

April 17, 2025

No. 23-1007

Suing Over Retirement Fees

Cunningham v. Cornell University

How much must workers show up front to sue over retirement-plan fees?

Cornell University employees claimed their retirement plans overpaid recordkeepers like TIAA and Fidelity. Lower courts made them disprove statutory exemptions before their case could start. The Court unanimously held workers need only allege a prohibited transaction; exemptions are defenses the employer must raise.

Workers' fee lawsuits clear the pleading bar more easily.

A7Power-restraintRetirementWorkers

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 082

April 2, 2025

No. 23-1038

Flavored Vapes at the FDA

FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC

Did the FDA unfairly change the rules on flavored vape approvals midstream?

The FDA denied applications to sell flavors like "Jimmy the Juice Man Peachy Strawberry," and manufacturers said the agency demanded studies it never asked for. The Court unanimously held the FDA's denials were consistent with its guidance, though it sent one remedy question back down.

The FDA's flavored-vape denials largely survive.

A1PaternalismA8Precaution vs. permissionA2ExternalitiesVapingPublic healthFederal power

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 083

April 2, 2025

No. 23-365

The Trucker and the CBD

Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn

Can a worker fired over a tainted CBD product sue under the mob-racketeering law?

Douglas Horn lost his trucking job after a supposedly THC-free CBD product made him fail a drug test. He sued the maker under RICO, which covers injuries to "business or property." The Court held that lost wages can qualify even when they flow from a personal injury.

RICO can cover business losses that stem from personal injuries.

DrugsCourts

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 084

March 26, 2025

No. 23-824

Bankruptcy Meets the IRS

United States v. Miller

Can a bankruptcy trustee claw back a company's tax payment from the IRS?

A bankruptcy trustee tried to recover $145,000 that a failing Utah company paid the IRS for its owners' personal taxes, invoking state clawback law. The Court held sovereign immunity blocks that route: the government's waiver applies to the federal claim itself, not underlying state-law demands.

Trustees cannot use state law to claw back payments from the IRS.

BankruptcyTaxes

MajorityDissent

№ 085

March 26, 2025

No. 23-852

Ghost Guns

Bondi v. VanDerStok

Can the government regulate build-it-yourself gun kits like finished guns?

Kits sold online let buyers assemble untraceable firearms at home in under an hour, with no serial number or background check. The ATF classified the kits as firearms, requiring both. The Court upheld the rule: a kit readily convertible into a working gun can be regulated as one.

Ghost-gun kits can be regulated as firearms.

A2ExternalitiesA8Precaution vs. permissionGunsFederal power

MajorityDissent

№ 086

March 21, 2025

No. 23-1095

Misleading but Not False

Thompson v. United States

Does the law against false statements to banks also cover technically true ones?

Chicago politician Patrick Daley Thompson told regulators he owed a lender $110,000 — true as far as it went, but he owed $269,000. The Court unanimously held the federal statute criminalizes only false statements, not statements that are misleading yet literally true, and sent the case back.

The statute punishes false statements, not merely misleading ones.

A9Retributive desertFraudCriminal justice

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 087

March 21, 2025

No. 23-825

Violence by Doing Nothing

Delligatti v. United States

Is attempted murder a "crime of violence" even when committed by inaction?

A Mafia associate convicted for a murder-for-hire plot argued attempted murder doesn't require using force — one could kill by omission, like withholding medicine. The Court held that intentionally causing bodily harm always involves the "use" of force, even by omission, so the mandatory gun sentence stood.

Attempted murder counts as a violent crime, even by omission.

A9Retributive desertSentencingCriminal justice

MajorityDissent

№ 088

March 5, 2025

No. 23-713

The Veteran's Tie-Breaker

Bufkin v. Collins

Must courts double-check that the VA gave veterans the benefit of the doubt?

When evidence for and against a disability claim is evenly balanced, the VA must rule for the veteran. Two veterans denied PTSD benefits argued the Veterans Court should re-examine that call itself. The Court held the approximate-balance determination is mostly factual, so the deferential clear-error standard applies.

Courts review the VA's benefit-of-the-doubt calls only for clear error.

A3SolidarityVeteransBenefits

MajorityDissent

№ 089

March 4, 2025

No. 23-753

San Francisco's Sewage Permit

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency

Can the EPA punish a city for dirty water without saying what it must do?

San Francisco's sewer system overflows into the Pacific during heavy rain, and its federal permit made the city responsible for any drop in water quality. The Court held the EPA cannot enforce vague "end-result" requirements — permits must spell out the concrete steps a discharger has to take.

The EPA must set specific steps, not just demand clean outcomes.

A2ExternalitiesA7Power-restraintEnvironmentCities

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 090

February 26, 2025

No. 23-971

Undoing a Dismissal

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services

Can you reopen a lawsuit you voluntarily dropped by mistake?

Gary Waetzig dismissed his own age-discrimination suit against Halliburton to pursue arbitration, then lost and realized he had surrendered his day in court. The Court unanimously held a voluntary dismissal is a "final proceeding" that courts have discretion to reopen under the rules.

Voluntarily dismissed cases can be reopened.

CourtsWorkers

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 091

February 26, 2025

No. 23-900

Two Dewberrys, One Name

Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers

Can a trademark winner collect profits earned by the loser's affiliated companies?

Dewberry Engineers won a trademark fight against rival Dewberry Group and was awarded $43 million — money actually earned by the Group's separately incorporated affiliates. The Court unanimously held courts can award only the named defendant's own profits, not those of corporate relatives never sued.

Only the named defendant's profits can be awarded.

TrademarksBusiness

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 092

February 25, 2025

No. 22-7466

The Glossip Case

Glossip v. Oklahoma

Must a death-row prisoner get a new trial when prosecutors hid the truth?

Richard Glossip has faced execution for decades for a 1997 murder-for-hire, though Oklahoma's own attorney general concluded his trial was unfair: prosecutors let their star witness lie about his psychiatric treatment. The Court ordered a new trial, holding the suppressed evidence violated due process.

Glossip's conviction is overturned; he gets a new trial.

A9Retributive desertDeath penaltyCriminal justice

MajorityDissent

Gorsuch recused

№ 093

February 25, 2025

No. 23-621

Who Pays the Lawyers

Lackey v. Stinnie

Do you win attorney's fees if your case ends before a final ruling?

Virginia drivers won a preliminary court order blocking the state's license-suspension law, and the state then repealed it, mooting the case. The Court held that winning only a preliminary order makes no one a "prevailing party," so civil-rights plaintiffs in that position cannot collect fees.

Preliminary wins alone don't entitle plaintiffs to attorney's fees.

A7Power-restraintCourtsCivil rights

MajorityDissent

№ 094

February 21, 2025

No. 23-867

Holocaust Property Claims

Republic of Hungary v. Simon

Can Holocaust survivors sue Hungary in U.S. courts over confiscated property?

Survivors and heirs sued Hungary for property seized during the Holocaust, arguing proceeds were commingled into government funds later used in America. The Court unanimously held that merely alleging commingled money isn't enough to trace property to the U.S., a requirement to pierce Hungary's sovereign immunity.

Commingling alone doesn't open foreign states to U.S. lawsuits.

A4Moral circleForeign affairsCourts

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 095

February 21, 2025

No. 23-1127

The School Internet Fund

Wisconsin Bell v. United States, ex rel. Heath

Can whistleblowers sue over fraud in the school-internet subsidy program?

A whistleblower accused Wisconsin Bell of overcharging schools under the federal E-Rate program, which subsidizes school and library internet. The company argued the program's money isn't government money, so the False Claims Act doesn't apply. The Court unanimously disagreed: the government provided at least part of the funds.

E-Rate reimbursement requests can trigger false-claims liability.

A7Power-restraintFraudSchoolsTelecom

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 096

February 21, 2025

No. 23-191

Stalled Unemployment Checks

Williams v. Reed

Can states force you to finish a process that never ends before you can sue?

Alabamians waited months or years for unemployment benefits, and state courts said they couldn't sue over the delays until the very administrative process being challenged was complete. The Court held states cannot use that catch-22 to block federal civil-rights claims about delayed benefits.

Claimants can sue over benefit delays without finishing the delayed process.

A3SolidarityA7Power-restraintBenefitsCourts

MajorityDissent

Decided by a single vote

№ 097

January 21, 2025

No. 23-6573

A Trial About Her Character

Andrew v. White

Can prosecutors seek death by putting a woman's sex life on trial?

Oklahoma prosecutors sought the death penalty against Brenda Andrew for her husband's murder while parading irrelevant evidence about her affairs, clothing, and motherhood. The Court summarily ruled that due process forbids convictions infected by unduly prejudicial evidence, and sent her case back for review.

Her death sentence must be reviewed for prejudicial character evidence.

A9Retributive desertDeath penaltyCriminal justice

MajorityDissent

№ 098

January 17, 2025

No. 24-656

The TikTok Ban

TikTok, Inc. v. Garland

Can Congress force TikTok's Chinese owner to sell the app or shut it down?

Congress, citing national security, required ByteDance to divest TikTok or see it banned from U.S. app stores. TikTok and creators said the law silences 170 million American users. The Court unanimously upheld it, finding the data-security rationale sufficient and the burden on speech content-neutral.

The divest-or-ban law is constitutional.

A7Power-restraintA2ExternalitiesFree speechNational securityBig tech

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 099

January 15, 2025

No. 23-677

The Pet-Food Jurisdiction Puzzle

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger

If you drop your federal claims, does your case go back to state court?

A dog owner sued Royal Canin over prescription-only pet food, and when the company moved the case to federal court, she deleted her federal claims. The Court unanimously held the amended complaint controls: with no federal claims left, the case belongs back in state court.

Dropping federal claims sends the case back to state court.

Courts

MajorityDissent

Unanimous

№ 100

January 15, 2025

No. 23-217

Proving Who Gets Overtime

E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera

How convincingly must employers prove workers are exempt from overtime?

Grocery distributor EMD Sales claimed its sales reps were exempt from overtime as "outside salesmen." A lower court demanded the employer prove it with clear and convincing evidence. The Court unanimously held the ordinary civil standard — more likely than not — applies to overtime exemptions.

Employers prove overtime exemptions by a preponderance of the evidence.

WorkersOvertime

MajorityDissent

Unanimous