A case in which the Court will decide whether, and if so to what extent, a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act—which requires hospitals receiving Medicare funding to offer “necessary stabilizing treatment” to pregnant women in emergencies—preempts an Idaho law that criminalizes most abortions in the state.

A case in which the Court will decide what test courts must use to evaluate the National Labor Relations Board’s requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the denial of a visa to the non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen infringes on a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen and, if so, whether the government properly justified that decision.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment prevents a city from enforcing a ban on public camping against homeless individuals.

A case in which the Court will clarify the methodology for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, includes acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge so long as other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder in order to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder’s stock should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shareholder’s shares for purposes of the federal estate tax.

A case in which the Court will resolve a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.

A case in which the Court will resolve a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Indian Health Service must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the 60-day filing deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) is jurisdictional.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the probable-cause exception in Nieves v. Barlett can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened; and whether Nieves is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.

A case in which the Court will decide whether to approve a consent decree resolving claims among Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico over the delivery of water from the Rio Grande Basin to Elephant Butte.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, in a prosecution for drug trafficking—where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs—Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters.

A case in which the Court will decide whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” that may object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the government’s requests to large social media companies that they take steps to prevent the dissemination of purported misinformation constituted coercion and thus transformed those private companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated users’ First Amendment rights.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a New York regulator’s discouragement of companies from doing business with the National Rifle Association after the Parkland school shooting constitutes coercion in violation of the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).

A case in which the Court will decide whether, when parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, an arbitrator or a court decides whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a district court can enter a criminal forfeiture order when the time limit specified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has already passed.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a state law restricting social media platforms from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech and requiring them to submit to onerous operational and disclosure requirements violates the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Florida S.B. 7072’s content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and whether the law’s individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a copyright plaintiff can recover damages for acts that allegedly occurred more than three years before the filing of a lawsuit.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act, a class of workers that is actively engaged in interstate transportation must also be employed by a company in the transportation industry.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes harm to the plaintiff.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump from being listed on the 2024 presidential primary ballot.

A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule its decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress directly under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst?

A case in which the Court will decide whether to require the U.S. Trustee to issue refunds for the extra fees paid by debtors in certain districts to address the lack of uniformity identified in Siegel v. Fitzgerald.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a monetary exaction imposed by a local government as a condition for a building permit is exempt from the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements established in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n and Dolan v. City of Tigard, simply because the exaction is authorized by local legislation.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the government provides adequate notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document that does not include the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information.

A case in which the Court will decide whether respondent’s claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are moot given that he was removed from the No Fly List in 2016 and the government provided a sworn declaration stating that he “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information.”

A case in which the Court will decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a signification disadvantage.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violates the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was previously acquitted.

A case in which the Court will decide whether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or instead is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

A case in which the Court will decide whether the "serious drug offense" definition in the Armed Career Criminal Act incorporates the federal drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the federal firearm offense or the federal drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the prior state drug offense.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service is entitled to receive all of the education benefits at once from programs associated with both periods of service.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social media account, which the official uses to communicate about job-related matters with the public.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office.

A case in which the Court will decide what test a district court must apply when determining whether and when a post-deprivation hearing is required under the Due Process Clause.

A case in which the Court will decide whether South Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

A case in which the Court will decide whether South Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief to succeed on a retaliation claim.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a civil rights “tester” has Article III standing to challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act a hotel’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional.

A case in which the Court will clarify what qualifies a defendant for prison sentence below the statutory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) as amended by the First Step Act of 2018.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause; and (2) whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt, plus interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a foreign plaintiff with no alleged connection to the United States can state a cognizable claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act when it suffers an injury to an intangible property.

A case in which the Court held that a foreign plaintiff with no alleged connection to the United States can state a cognizable claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act if the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress’s intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, to preserve the issue for appellate review, a party must reassert in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment.

A case in which the Court held the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress’s intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes.

A case in which the Court held that a party need not reassert in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment in order to preserve it for appeal.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement.

A case in which the Court held that, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement.

A case in which the Court will decide whether and when a defendant’s contemporaneous subjective understanding or beliefs about the lawfulness of its conduct are relevant to whether it “knowingly” violated the False Claims Act.

A case in which the Court will clarify what constitutes an “undue hardship” for an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when an employee alleges discrimination based on religion.

A case in which the Court held that Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.

A case in which the Court held the scienter element of a claim under the False Claims Act pertains to the defendant’s contemporaneous subjective understanding or beliefs about the lawfulness of its conduct, not the objective reasonableness of such belief.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Virginia’s offense of accessory after the fact to a felony is an offense relating to obstruction of justice under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 require plaintiffs to plead and prove that they bought shares registered under the registration statement they claim is misleading.

A case in which the Court held that Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 require plaintiffs to plead and prove that they bought shares registered under the registration statement they claim is misleading.

A case in which the Court held that Virginia’s offense of accessory after the fact to a felony is an offense relating to obstruction of justice under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the exception in I.R.C. § 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) to the notice requirements for an Internal Revenue Service summons on third-party recordkeepers applies to a summons for anyone’s records whenever the IRS thinks that person’s records might somehow help it collect a delinquent taxpayer’s liability.

A case in which the Court will decide whether admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on context violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the exception in I.R.C. § 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) to the notice requirements for an Internal Revenue Service summons on third-party recordkeepers applies to a summons for anyone’s records whenever the IRS thinks that person’s records might somehow help it collect a delinquent taxpayer’s liability.

A case in which the Court held that admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on context does not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal criminal sentencing law requires a man who was convicted and sentenced for his role in a drug-trafficking-related murder to serve consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.

A case in which the Court will decide the proper remedy for the government’s failure to prove venue in a criminal prosecution.

A case in which the Court held that a federal criminal sentencing law gives the court flexibility to decide between consecutive and concurrent sentences for a man who was convicted and sentenced for his role in a drug-trafficking-related murder.

A case in which the Court held that the Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district.

A case in which the Court will decide what an applicant for a patent must provide to meet the statutory requirement of a description of the invention that would enable a “skilled artisan” to “make and use” the claimed invention.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i)’s prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i)’s prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law and is not unconstitutionally overbroad.

A case in which the Court held that two of Amgen’s patents do not satisfy the Patent Act’s enablement clause because they do not describe the invention with sufficient particularity that would enable a “skilled artisan” to “make and use” the claimed invention.

A case in which the Court will decide whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection.

A case in which the Court held that humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s likelihood-of-confusion analysis.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Lanham Act permits the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark to recover damages for the use of that trademark when the infringement occurred outside the United States and is not likely to cause confusion in the United States.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal.

A case in which the Court held that the Lanham Act does not permit the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark to recover damages for the use of that trademark when the infringement occurred outside the United States and is not likely to cause confusion in the United States.

A case in which the Court held that a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration requires the district court to stay its proceedings while the interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is pending.

A case in which the Court will resolve a long-running dispute between the Navajo Nation and the State of Arizona over the rights to water from the Colorado River.

A case in which the Court held that the 1868 treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation but did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe.

A case in which the Court will decide whether New Jersey can withdraw from an interstate compact with New York that created a waterfront commission with police power.

A case in which the Court held that New Jersey can unilaterally withdraw from an interstate compact with New York that created a waterfront commission with police power.

A case in which the Court will consider a challenge to the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Biden administration can proceed with its student-debt relief program.

A case in which the Court held that the Secretary of Education does not have the authority under the HEROES Act to cancel roughly $430 billion in student debt.

A case in which the Court was asked to consider a challenge to the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time they mention or otherwise recite someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense.

A case in which the Court held that a person commits “aggravated identity theft,” if he “uses” another person’s means of identification “in relation to” a predicate offense when the use is at the crux of—rather than merely peripheral to—what makes the conduct criminal.

A case in which the Court will decide whether an internet platform “knowingly” provides substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use, and whether an internet platform whose services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff may still be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333.

A case in which the Court held an internet platform does not “knowingly” provide substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use, and that an internet platform whose services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff cannot be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields internet platforms from liability when their algorithms target users and recommend a third party’s content.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields internet platforms from liability when their algorithms target users and recommend a third party’s content.

A case in which the Court held that an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit seeking compensatory damages for the denial of a free and appropriate education may proceed without exhausting the administrative processes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act because the remedy sought is not one IDEA provides.

A case in which the Court held that an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit seeking compensatory damages for the denial of a free and appropriate education may proceed without exhausting the administrative processes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act because the remedy sought is not one IDEA provides.

A case in which the Court will decide whether U.S. district courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether federal immigration law bars a federal court of appeals from reviewing an immigrant’s claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals had engaged in impermissible factfinding because the immigrant had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider.

A case in which the Court held that a federal immigration law does not bar a federal court of appeals from reviewing an immigrant’s claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals had engaged in impermissible factfinding simply because the immigrant had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider, which is a discretionary form of review.

A case in which the Court held that U.S. district courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and that such entities are not immune from criminal prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA)’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims.

A case in which the Court held the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA)’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA does not abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims.

A case in which the Court held the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA)’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA does not abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the National Labor Relations Act preempts a state-court lawsuit against a union for intentionally destroying an employer’s property during a labor dispute.

A case in which the Court held that the National Labor Relations Act does not preempt a state-court lawsuit against a union for intentionally destroying an employer’s property during a labor dispute.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies, also empowers it to regulate the labor practices of state militias.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege when obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege when obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication.

A case in which the Court held that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies, also empowers it to regulate the labor practices of state militias.

A case in which the Court will resolve the dispute over the “Independent State Legislature” (ISL) theory—that only a state legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, notwithstanding state courts or constitutional constraints.

A case in which the Court rejected the “Independent State Legislature” (ISL) theory—that only a state legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, notwithstanding state courts or constitutional constraints.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, when an individual brings a lawsuit on behalf of the government alleging fraud on the United States, the government has the power to dismiss the lawsuit after initially declining to take over the case, and what standard applies if the government has that power.

A case in which the Court held that a bankruptcy debtor can be held liable for another person’s fraud, even when they were not aware of the fraud.

A case in which the Court held that when an individual brings a lawsuit on behalf of the government alleging fraud on the United States, the government has the power to dismiss the lawsuit whenever it intervenes in the case, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) governs that procedure.

A case in which the Court held that a bankruptcy debtor can be held liable for another person’s fraud, even when they were not aware of the fraud.

A case in which the Court will decide whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. ​​

A case in which the Court will decide whether Bankruptcy Code Section 363(m) limits the jurisdiction of appellate courts over an order approving the sale of a debtor’s assets or instead simply limits the remedies available on appeal from such an order.

A case in which the Court held that Bankruptcy Code Section 363(m) does not limit the jurisdiction of appellate courts over an order approving the sale of a debtor’s assets but instead simply limits the remedies available on appeal from such an order.

A case in which the Court held that applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. ​​

A case in which the Court held that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule.

A case in which the Court held that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Biden administration’s revised immigration policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether the Biden administration’s revised immigration policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a private citizen who holds no elected office or government employment, but has informal political or other influence over governmental decisionmaking, owes a fiduciary duty to the general public such that he can be convicted of honest-services fraud.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Second Circuit’s “right to control” theory of fraud, which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person’s economic decision as a species of property fraud, states a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statute.

A case in which the Court reversed the conviction of a private citizen who was convicted of honest-services fraud on the theory that, although he held no elected office or government employment, he had informal political or other influence over governmental decisionmaking, and thus owed a fiduciary duty to the general public.

A case in which the Court held the Second Circuit’s “right to control” theory of fraud, which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person’s economic decision as a species of property fraud, cannot state a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statute.

A case in which the Court will review the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

A case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether federal laws enacted under Congress’s Spending Clause power, such as the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act in this case, allow a plaintiff to file a federal civil rights claim for their violation.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations confers general personal jurisdiction over the registrant.

A case in which the Court held that a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations confers general personal jurisdiction over the registrant.

A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff may sue under Section 1983 for violation of rights secured by legislation enacted under Congress's Spending Clause power, in this case, the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the Federal Trade Commission’s structure, procedure, and existence.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to consider claims challenging the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative proceedings.

A case in which the Court held that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the Federal Trade Commission’s structure, procedure, and existence.

A case in which the Court held that a federal district court has jurisdiction to consider claims challenging the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative proceedings.

A case in which the Court held that a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act is the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), notwithstanding the number of individual accounts that were not properly reported.

A case in which the Court held that a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act is the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), notwithstanding the number of individual accounts that were not properly reported.

A case in which the Court will decide whether federal inmates who did not challenge their convictions on the ground that the statute did not criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief after the Supreme Court clarifies in a retroactively applicable decision invalidating the circuit precedent that kept them from challenging their convictions.

A case in which the Court held the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that a state rule of criminal procedure precluded post-conviction relief is not an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment against him.

A case in which the Court held the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that a state rule of criminal procedure precluded post-conviction relief is not an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment against him.

A case in which the Court held that the saving clause in 28 U. S. C. §2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in the interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a habeas petition under § 2241.

A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.

A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.

A case in which the Court overruled its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger to hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.

A case in which the Court overruled its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger to hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.

A case in which the Court held that daily-rate workers, of whatever income level, qualify as paid on a salary basis only if they satisfy three conditions outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A case in which the Court will decide what it means for a work of art to be “transformative” for purposes of the Copyright Act’s fair use doctrine.

A case in which the Court held that Andy Warhol Foundation's commercial use of artwork derived from Lynn Goldsmith's copyrighted photograph of the musician Prince lacked transformative value and thus weighed against fair use.

A case in which the Court held that daily-rate workers, of whatever income level, qualify as paid on a salary basis only if they satisfy three conditions outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any appeals, or as soon as the state trial court denies DNA testing, despite any appeals.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a California law restricting the sale of pork within the state in a way that affects most or all commercial out-of-state farms violates the “dormant” component of the Commerce Clause.

A case in which the Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of a challenge to a California law restricting the sale of pork within the state in a way that affects most or all commercial out-of-state farms.

A case in which the Court held that the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any appeals, rather than as soon as the state trial court denies DNA testing.

A case in which the Court held the one-year filing deadline for veterans to submit disability claims after they are discharged is not subject to principles of equitable tolling, meaning that missing the filing deadline forfeits retroactive disability benefits.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

A case in which the Court held the one-year filing deadline for veterans to submit disability claims after they are discharged is not subject to principles of equitable tolling, meaning that missing the filing deadline forfeits retroactive disability benefits.

A case in which the Court held that Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

A case in which the Court held that the Federal Disposition Act applies to unclaimed or uncashed checks issued by MoneyGram Payments Systems, and thus that they must be returned to the state where they were purchased.

A case in which the Court will clarify the proper test for determining whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.

A case in which the Court held that wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act only if they have a continuous surface connection with traditional navigable waters.

A case in which the Court held that a state has concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes against Natives on Native American lands.

A case in which the Court held a transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not “necessary or appropriate in aid of” a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief.

A case in which the Court held that the Biden administration properly rescinded Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they await hearing in U.S. immigration court.

A case in which the Court held that a public school’s attempt to avoid an Establishment Clause claim by forbidding a coach from praying with students during and after a game violates the coach’s free speech and free exercise rights.

A case in which the Court held that Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the procedural vehicle appropriate for a prisoner’s method-of-execution claim even if an order granting the relief requested would necessitate a change in state law.

A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff may not state a claim for relief against a law enforcement officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the officer’s failure to provide Miranda warnings.

A case in which the Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) authorizes relief based on a district court’s error of law.

A case in which the Court held that “clear and unmistakable error,” in the context of a veteran’s challenge of a denial of benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs, does not include the invalidation of a VA regulation.

A case in which the Court held the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act violates the uniformity requirement of the Constitution's Bankruptcy Clause by increasing quarterly fees solely in districts under the U.S. Trustee program and not in those under the Bankruptcy Administrator program.

A case in which the Court held that a state worker’s compensation law that applies exclusively to certain federal workers violates the principle of intergovernmental immunity.

A case in which the Court held that a state worker’s compensation law that applies exclusively to certain federal workers violates the principle of intergovernmental immunity.

A case in which the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act.

A case in which the Court held that Congress has the power to abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity from lawsuit pursuant to its constitutional war powers.

A case in which the Court held that an airline employee who works as a ramp agent supervisor is a “transportation worker” and therefore not required to arbitrate her wage dispute with the airline.

A case in which the Court affirmed, via an equally divided Court, that a train that makes a temporary stop in a railyard as part of its unitary journey in interstate commerce is not “in use” and therefore not subject to the Locomotive Inspection Act.

A case in which the Court held that a federal law that gives district courts the discretion to order someone in that district to give testimony or produce documents “for use in a foreign or international tribunal” does not apply to private commercial arbitral tribunals.

A case in which the Court held that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction does not categorically require courts to consider all measures that might mitigate the grave risk of harm if the child were to return to their country of habitual residence.

A case in which the Court held that North Carolina legislators have a right to intervene in a lawsuit to defend a state voter-ID law.

A case in which the Court held the arbitration-specific requirement that the proponent of a contractual waiver defense prove prejudice violates the Supreme Court’s instruction that lower courts must “place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts.”

A case in which the Court held an individual cannot sue federal officers for First Amendment retaliation claims or for allegedly violating the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights while engaging in immigration-related functions.