October Term 2024
67 opinions
- Goldey v. Fields2025-06-30 · 606 U. S. 942 (2025)9-0
The Fourth Circuit’s determination that inmate Andrew Fields could proceed with his Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents is reversed, and the case is remanded.
- Trump v. CASA, Inc.2025-06-27 · 606 U. S. 831 (2025)6-3 — Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson dissenting
Because universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts, the court grants the government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below regarding the implementation and enforcement of the Trump administration’s Jan. 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.
- Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.2025-06-27 · 606 U. S. 748 (2025)6–3 — Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch dissenting
- FCC v. Consumers’ Research2025-06-27 · 606 U. S. 656 (2025)6–2 — Gorsuch, Thomas dissenting
- Mahmoud v. Taylor2025-06-27 · 606 U. S. 522 (2025)6-3 — Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson dissenting
Parents challenging the Montgomery County Board of Education’s introduction of certain “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with the board’s decision to withhold parental opt outs from that instruction, are entitled to a preliminary injunction.
- Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton2025-06-27 · 606 U. S. 461 (2025)6-3 — Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson dissenting
A Texas law requiring certain commercial websites publishing sexually explicit content that is obscene to minors to verify that visitors are 18 or older only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults and survives intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.
- Hewitt v. United States2025-06-26 · 606 U. S. 419 (2025)5-4 — Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett dissenting
Because a sentence “has ... been imposed” for purposes of § 403(b) of the First Step Act only if the sentence is extant (i.e., has not been vacated), the act’s more lenient penalties apply to defendants whose previous sentences have been vacated and who need to be resentenced following the act’s enactment; the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded.
- Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic2025-06-26 · 606 U. S. 357 (2025)6–3 — Jackson, Sotomayor, Kagan dissenting
- Gutierrez v. Saenz2025-06-26 · 606 U. S. 305 (2025)6–3 — Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch dissenting
- Riley v. Bondi2025-06-26 · 606 U. S. 259 (2025) · Vacated and remandedUnanimous
- FDA v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co.2025-06-20 · 606 U. S. 226 (2025)7–2 — Jackson, Sotomayor dissenting
- Esteras v. United States2025-06-20 · 606 U. S. 185 (2025)7-2 — Alito, Gorsuch dissenting
A district court considering whether to revoke a defendant’s term of supervised release may not consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) , which covers retribution vis-à-vis the defendant’s underlying criminal offense.
- McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.2025-06-20 · 606 U. S. 146 (2025) · Reversed and remanded6–3 — Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson dissenting
- Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA2025-06-20 · 606 U. S. 100 (2025)7–2 — Sotomayor, Jackson dissenting
- Stanley v. City of Sanford2025-06-20 · 606 U. S. 46 (2025)2–2 — Sotomayor, Jackson dissenting
- Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization2025-06-20 · 606 U. S. 1 (2025)9-0
The Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act’s personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches.
- NRC v. Texas2025-06-18 · 605 U. S. 665 (2025)6–2 — Gorsuch, Thomas dissenting
- EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C.2025-06-18 · 605 U. S. 627 (2025)6–2 — Gorsuch, Roberts dissenting
- Oklahoma v. EPA2025-06-18 · 605 U. S. 609 (2025)Unanimous
- United States v. Skrmetti2025-06-18 · 605 U. S. 495 (2025)6-3 — Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan dissenting
Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.
- Perttu v. Richards2025-06-18 · 605 U. S. 460 (2025)5-4 — Barrett, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh dissenting
Parties are entitled to a jury trial on the issue of exhaustion of remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
- Rivers v. Guerrero2025-06-12 · 605 U. S. 443 (2025)Unanimous
- Commissioner v. Zuch2025-06-12 · 605 U. S. 422 (2025)7–1 — Gorsuch dissenting
- Martin v. United States2025-06-12 · 605 U. S. 395 (2025) · Vacated and remandedUnanimous
- Parrish v. United States2025-06-12 · 605 U. S. 376 (2025)8-1 — Gorsuch dissenting
A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the federal court grants reopening under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) need not file a second notice after reopening, because the original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.
- Soto v. United States2025-06-12 · 605 U. S. 360 (2025)9-0
The CRSC — a statute providing “combat-related special compensation” to qualifying veterans who have suffered combat-related disabilities — confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the settlement procedures and limitations period under the Barring Act .
- A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 2792025-06-12 · 605 U. S. 335 (2025)Unanimous
- Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis2025-06-05 · 605 U. S. 303 (2025)0–1 — Kavanaugh dissenting
- Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services2025-06-05 · 605 U. S. 303 (2025)9-0
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule — which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim — cannot be squared with either the text of Title VII or the Supreme Court’s precedents.
- Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos2025-06-05 · 605 U. S. 280 (2025)9-0
Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act bars the lawsuit.
- Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Comm’n.2025-06-05 · 605 U. S. 238 (2025)Unanimous
- CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.2025-06-05 · 605 U. S. 223 (2025) · Reversed and remandedUnanimous
- BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman2025-06-05 · 605 U. S. 204 (2025) · Reversed and remanded9-0
Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint; a party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard can apply.
- Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County2025-05-29 · 605 U. S. 168 (2025)Unanimous
- OK Charter School Board v. Drummond2025-05-22 · 605 U. S. 165 (2025)
- Kousisis v. United States2025-05-22 · 605 U. S. 114 (2025)9-0
A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss.
- A.A.R.P. v. Trump2025-05-16 · 605 U. S. 91 (2025)7-2 — Alito, Thomas dissenting
- Barnes v. Felix2025-05-15 · 605 U. S. 73 (2025)9-0
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s moment-of-threat rule — a framework for evaluating police shootings which requires a court to look only to the circumstances existing at the precise time an officer perceived the threat inducing him to shoot — improperly narrows the Fourth Amendment analysis of police use of force.
- Feliciano v. Department Of Transportation2025-04-30 · 605 U. S. 38 (2025) · Reversed and remanded5-4 — Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Jackson dissenting
A federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to “any other provision of law ... during a national emergency” as described in 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13)(B) is entitled to differential pay if the reservist’s service temporally coincides with a declared national emergency without any showing that the service bears a substantive connection to a particular emergency.
- Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy2025-04-29 · 605 U. S. 1 (2025)7–2 — Jackson, Sotomayor dissenting
- Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi2025-04-22 · 604 U. S. 712 (2025)5–4 — Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett dissenting
- Cunningham v. Cornell Univ.2025-04-17 · 604 U. S. 693 (2025)Unanimous
- Trump v. J. G. G.2025-04-07 · 604 U. S. 670 (2025)5-4 — Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Barrett dissenting
- Department of Education v. California2025-04-04 · 604 U. S. 650 (2025)5-4 — Kagan, Jackson, Sotomayor dissenting
- Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn2025-04-02 · 604 U. S. 593 (2025)5-4 — Thomas, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Alito dissenting
Under civil RICO , a plaintiff may seek treble damages for business or property loss even if the loss resulted from a personal injury.
- FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC2025-04-02 · 604 U. S. 542 (2025)Unanimous
- United States v. Miller2025-03-26 · 604 U. S. 518 (2025)8-1 — Gorsuch dissenting
Section 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code abrogates the government's sovereign immunity with respect to a Section 544(b) claim but that waiver does not extend to state-law claims nested within that federal claim.
- Bondi v. Vanderstok2025-03-26 · 604 U. S. 458 (2025)7-2 — Thomas, Alito dissenting
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives's 2022 rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 to cover certain products that can readily be converted into an operational firearm or a functional frame or receiver is not facially inconsistent with the act.
- Delligatti v. United States2025-03-21 · 604 U. S. 423 (2025)7-2 — Gorsuch, Jackson dissenting
The knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the "use" of "physical force" against another person within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) .
- Thompson v. United States2025-03-21 · 604 U. S. 408 (2025)9-0
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1014 , which prohibits "knowingly mak[ing] any false statement," does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false.
- Bufkin v. Collins2025-03-05 · 604 U. S. 369 (2025)7–2 — Jackson, Gorsuch dissenting
- City and County of San Francisco v. EPA2025-03-04 · 604 U. S. 334 (2025)Unanimous
- Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc.2025-02-26 · 604 U. S. 321 (2025)9-0
In awarding the "defendant's profits" to the prevailing plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act , a court can award only profits ascribable to the "defendant" itself.
- Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.2025-02-26 · 604 U. S. 305 (2025)9-0
A case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) counts as a "final proceeding" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) .
- Glossip v. Oklahoma2025-02-25 · 604 U. S. 226 (2025)5–3 — Barrett, Thomas, Alito dissenting
- Lackey v. Stinnie2025-02-25 · 604 U. S. 192 (2025)7-2 — Jackson, Sotomayor dissenting
Plaintiffs who gained only preliminary injunctive relief before this action became moot do not qualify as "prevailing part[ies]" eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) because no court conclusively resolved their claims by granting enduring relief on the merits that altered the legal relationship between the parties.
- Williams v. Reed2025-02-21 · 604 U. S. 168 (2025)5–4 — Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett dissenting
- Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath2025-02-21 · 604 U. S. 140 (2025)Unanimous
- Hungary v. Simon2025-02-21 · 604 U. S. 115 (2025)Unanimous
- Andrew v. White2025-01-21 · 604 U. S. 86 (2025)7-2 — Thomas, Gorsuch dissenting
At the time of the decision of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, clearly established federal law provided that the erroneous admission of unduly prejudicial evidence could render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair in violation of due process; the judgment below is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
- TikTok Inc. v. Garland2025-01-17 · 604 U. S. 56 (2025)9-0
The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners' First Amendment rights.
- E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera2025-01-15 · 604 U. S. 45 (2025)9-0
The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act .
- Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger2025-01-15 · 604 U. S. 22 (2025)Unanimous
- NVIDIA v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB2024-12-11 · 604 U. S. 20 (2024)
- Bouarfa v. Mayorkas2024-12-10 · 604 U. S. 6 (2024)9-0
Revocation of an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1155 based on a sham-marriage determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the purview of Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) , which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain actions "in the discretion of" the agency.
- Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank2024-11-22 · 604 U. S. 4 (2024)
Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.
- Hamm v. Smith2024-11-04 · 604 U. S. 1 (2024)