Trump, President of U.S. v. Cook | 01/21/26 | Docket #: 25A312 25A312 TRUMP V. COOK DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 2654786 THE APPLICATION FOR STAY PRESENTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND BY HIM REFERRED TO THE COURT IS DEFERRED PENDING ORAL ARGUMENT IN JANUARY 2026. JURISDICTION NOTED 10/1/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER:

M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 23-1209 23-1209 M & K EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS, LLC V. TRUSTEES OF THE IAM PENSION FUND DECISION BELOW: 92 F.4th 316 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act imposes "withdrawal liability" when an employer withdraws from an underfunded multiemployer pension plan. This withdrawal liabilty covers the employer's share of the plan's underfunding. Because a plan's amount of underfunding hinges on projections about its projected liabilities and assets decades into the future, withdrawal liability computations are partly a product of actuarial assumptions about anticipated interest rates and other predictions. Withdrawal liability must be computed "as of the end of the plan year preceding the plan year in which the employer withdraws." E.g., 29 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2)(E)(i). The question presented is: Whether 29 U.S.C. 1391's instruction to compute withdrawal liability "as of the end of the plan year" requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions to which its actuary subscribed at the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after the end of the year . LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-7157, 22-7158, 23-7028 THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER 29 U. S. C. § 1391 ’ S INSTRUCTION TO COMPUTE WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY “ AS OF THE END OF THE PLAN YEAR ” REQUIRES THE PLAN TO BASE THE COMPUTATION ON THE ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS TO WHICH ITS ACTUARY SUBSCRIBED AT THE END OF THE YEAR, OR ALLOWS THE PLAN TO USE DIFFERENT ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE ADOPTED AFTER THE END OF THE YEAR. Order of July 3, 2025: The order granting the petition for a writ of certiorari is amended as follows. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER 29 U. S. C. §1391 ’ S INSTRUCTION TO COMPUTE WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY “ AS OF THE END OF THE PLAN YEAR ” REQUIRES THE PLAN TO BASE THE COMPUTATION ON THE ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS MOST RECENTLY ADOPTED BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, OR ALLOWS THE PLAN TO USE DIFFERENT ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE ADOPTED AFTER, BUT BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE AS OF, THE END OF THE YEAR.         CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025

Wolford v. Lopez | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 24-1046 24-1046 WOLFORD V. LOPEZ DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 959 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022), holds that "the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry" of arms, meaning ordinary, law-abiding citizens may "'bear' arms in public for self-defense." In this case, the Ninth Circuit sustained a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a handgun on private property unless he has been "given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." H.R.S. § 134-9.5. That holding is in acknowledged direct conflict with the Second Circuit's holding in Antonyuk v. James , 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), a decision that struck down an identical State law in the same procedural posture as this case. The Ninth Circuit also sustained a multitude of other location bans on carry by permit holders, relying solely on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws. That doctrinal approach is in direct conflict with the Third Circuit's decision in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police , 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Connelly , 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit's decision in Worth v. Jacobson , 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024), and, most recently, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in NRA v. Bondi , No. 21- 12314, 2025 WL 815734 at *5 (11th Cir. March 14,2025) (en banc), all of which hold that primary focus must be on Founding generation laws and tradition in applying the text, history and tradition test Bruen mandates. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier? 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen 's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-16164

Galette v. NJ Transit Corp. | 01/14/26 | Docket #: 24-1021 24-1021 GALETTE V. NJ TRANSIT CORP. DECISION BELOW: 332 A.3d 776 THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI ARE GRANTED, LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION IS AN ARM OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY FOR INTERSTATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY PURPOSES. CONSOLIDATED FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT WITH 24-1113 . ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 19,2025 :  THE TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER  15 , 2025 , IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY, IS THEREFORE STAYED PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE OF THIS COURT IN NJ TRANSIT CORP., ET AL. V. COLT, JEFFREY, ET AL. , CASE NO. 24- 1113 , AND GALETTE, CEDRIC V. NJ TRANSIT CORP. , CASE NO. 24-1021 .   CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is entitled to interstate sovereign immunity under the Federal Constitution, as held by the highest court of Pennsylvania in square conflict with the highest court of New York. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 4 EAP 2024

West Virginia v. B. P. J. | 01/13/26 | Docket #: 24-43 24-43 WEST VIRGINIA V. B.P.J. DECISION BELOW: 98 F.4th 542 CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Like everywhere else, West Virginia schools offer separate sports teams for boys and girls. The West Virginia Legislature concluded that biological boys should compete on boys' and co-ed teams but not girls' teams. This separation made sense, the Legislature found, because of the "inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females." A parent sued on behalf of her child, B.P.J., arguing that the State must allow biological boys who identify as girls to compete on girls' teams. After extensive discovery, the district court disagreed, entering summary judgment for the State on claims under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Yet a divided Fourth Circuit panel granted an injunction pending appeal. B.P.J. then beat and displaced hundreds of girls in track and field. Ultimately, the same divided panel ruled in B.P.J.'s favor on the Title IX claim and vacated the district court's judgment for the defendants on the equal-protection claim. Judge Agee dissented, criticizing the majority for "inappropriately expand[ing] the scope of the Equal Protection Clause and upend[ing] the essence of Title IX." App.44a. He hoped this Court would "take the opportunity with all deliberate speed to resolve these questions of national importance." App.74a The questions presented are: 1. Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. 2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1078, 23-1130

Little v. Hecox | 01/13/26 | Docket #: 24-38 24-38 LITTLE, GOVERNOR OF IDAHO V. HECOX DECISION BELOW: 104 F.4th 1061 ORDER OF OCTOBER 20, 2025: RESPONDENT'S REQUEST THAT THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE AS MOOT IS DEFERRED PENDING ORAL ARGUMENT. SEE ACHESON HOTELS, LLC v. LAUFER , 601 U. S. 1, 4 (2023). CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Women and girls have overcome decades of discrimination to achieve a more equal playing field in many arenas of American life-including sports. Yet in some competitions, female athletes have become bystanders in their own sports as male athletes who identify as female have taken the place of their female competitors-on the field and on the winners' podium. The Idaho Legislature addressed that injustice by enacting the Fairness in Women's Sports Act, which ensures that women and girls do not have to compete against men and boys no matter how those men and boys identify. The Act-one of 25 such state laws around the country-is consistent with longstanding government policies preserving women's and girls' sports due to the "average real differences" between the sexes. Clark ex rel. Clark v. Ariz. Interscholastic Ass'n, 695 F.2d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 1982). Breaking with this Court's precedents, its own caselaw, other circuit decisions, and biological reality, the Ninth Circuit panel here upheld an injunction against the Act because it prevents "transgender women and girls"-meaning males who identify as women and girls-from competing in "women's student athletics." App.4a-5a. The question presented is: Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 20-35813, 20-35815

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish | 01/12/26 | Docket #: 24-813 24-813 CHEVRON USA INC. V. PLAQUEMINES PARISH DECISION BELOW: 103 F.4th 324 January 8 , 2026 JUSTICE ALITO WILL NOT CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CASE. CERT. GRANTED 6/16/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: This petition arises from Louisiana parishes' efforts to hold petitioners liable in state court for, inter alia , production of crude oil in the Louisiana coastal zone during World War II. Petitioners removed these cases from state court under 28 U.S.C. §1442 (a)(1), which as amended in 2011 provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." The Fifth Circuit unanimously held that petitioners satisfy the statute's "acting under" requirement by virtue of their WWII-era contracts to supply the federal government with high-octane aviation gasoline ("avgas"). But the panel divided on the "relating to" requirement, with the two-judge majority holding that petitioners' wartime production of crude oil was "unrelated" to their contractually required refinement of that same crude into avgas because the contracts did not contain any explicit "directive pertaining to [petitioners'] oil production activities." App.38. Judge Oldham dissented, explaining that the majority's approach reinstates a variant of the "causal nexus" requirement that multiple circuits (and the U.S. Congress) have expressly rejected. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by a vote of 7 to 6. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute. 2. Whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-30294, 23-30422

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund | 12/10/25 | Docket #: 24-345 24-345 FS CREDIT CORP. V. SABA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD. DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 3174971 CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The courts of appeals have split 2-1 over whether Congress created an implied private right of action in Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA), which provides: (1) A contract that is made, or whose performance involves, a violation of this subchapter ... is unenforceable by either party .... (2) To the extent that a contract described in paragraph (1) has been performed, a court may not deny rescission at the instance of any party unless such court finds that under the circumstances the denial of rescission would produce a more equitable result than its grant and would not be inconsistent with the purposes of this subchapter. 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46(b)(1)-(2). The Third and Ninth Circuits, relying on statutory text and structure, hold that Section 47(b) does not create an implied private right of action, and a panel of the Fourth Circuit has agreed in an unpublished opinion. Only the Second Circuit-where plaintiffs may be able to sue most investment funds subject to the ICA, given New York's and the New York Stock Exchange's roles in financial operations- holds the opposite based on an "inference": parties may bring a lawsuit under Section 47(b), even though Congress never said so. The question presented is whether Section 47(b) of the ICA, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46 (b), creates an implied private right of action. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-8104, 24-79, 24-80, 24-82, 24-83, 24-116, 24-189

Hamm v. Smith | 12/10/25 | Docket #: 24-872 24-872 HAMM, COMMISSIONER AL DOC V. SMITH DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 4793028 THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER AND HOW COURTS MAY CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF MULTIPLE IQ SCORES IN ASSESSING AN ATKINS CLAIM. CERT. GRANTED 6/6/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Like most States, Alabama requires that offenders prove an IQ of 70 or less to satisfy the intellectual-functioning prong of Atkins v. Virginia . This case was not close: Smith scored 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74 on five full-scale IQ tests. There is no way to conclude from these five numbers that Smith's true IQ is likely to be 70 or below. So the courts below required Smith to prove only that his IQ " could be " 70 and required the State to bring evidence "strong enough" to "foreclose" and "rule out the possibility" of intellectual disability. The first question presented is: 1. Whether, under a proper application of Atkins , a State can require a claimant to prove an IQ of 70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence. Evaluating multiple IQ scores is "complicated," and "this Court has not specified how" to do it. In the State's view, five scores are more accurate than one, and there are ways to account for that fact. The courts below disagree. The district court relied on Smith's 72 ± 3 to find that his IQ "could be" 69. On remand, the Eleventh Circuit's "holistic approach" asked whether Smith had scores of "about" 75 or less. Counting four out of five scores between 72 and 75, the court found "consistent evidence" that Smith "may" qualify as mildly disabled. Thus, the court "followed the law's requirement," in its view, to "move on" to Smith's adaptive deficits. The second question presented is: 2. Whether courts evaluating multiple IQ scores must find that every valid score of "about" 75 or less supports an Atkins claim. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-14519

NRSC v. FEC | 12/09/25 | Docket #: 24-621 24-621 NRSC V. FEC DECISION BELOW: 117 F.4th 389 Order of July 1, 2025: ROMAN MARTINEZ, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE , IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. Order of December 5 , 2025 : THE MOTION OF COURT-APPOINTED AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IS GRANTED. CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: A political party exists to get its candidates elected. Yet Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their own campaign advertising if done in cooperation with those very candidates. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d). In an opinion by Chief Judge Sutton, a 10-judge majority of the en banc Sixth Circuit agreed that these so-called "coordinated party expenditure limits" stand in serious tension with recent First Amendment doctrine. App.10a-15a. It nevertheless upheld them as constitutional, both on their face and as applied to coordinated political advertising ("party coordinated communications"), believing the case to be controlled by FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee , 533 U.S. 431 (2001) ( Colorado II ). In doing so, the majority acknowledged that in the 23 years since Colorado II , this Court "has tightened the free-speech restrictions on campaign finance regulation," that "tension has emerged between the reasoning of Colorado II and the reasoning of later decisions of the Court," and that relevant facts have "changed, most notably with 2014 amendments" to the limits and "the rise of unlimited spending by political action committees." App.3a-4a, 11a. But it thought "any new assessment of the validity of the limits" remained this Court's "province, not ours." App.14a-15a. The question presented is: Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-3051

Trump, President of United States v. Slaughter | 12/08/25 | Docket #: 25-332 25-332 TRUMP V. SLAUGHTER DECISION BELOW: THE APPLICATION FOR STAY PRESENTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND BY HIM REFERRED TO THE COURT IS GRANTED. THE JULY 17,2025 ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NO. 25 – CV – 909 , ECF DOC. 52 , IS STAYED. THE APPLICATION IS ALSO TREATED AS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT, AND THE PETITION IS GRANTED.   THE STAY SHALL TERMINATE UPON THE SENDING DOWN OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT. EXPEDITED BRIEFING. CERT. GRANTED 9/22/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: (1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey ’ s Executor v. United States , 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person ’ s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 25-5261

Olivier v. City of Brandon | 12/03/25 | Docket #: 24-993 24-993 OLIVIER V. BRANDON, MS DECISION BELOW: 2023 WL 5500223 CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Gabriel Olivier is a Christian who feels called to share the gospel with his fellow citizens. After being arrested and fined for violating an ordinance targeting "protests" outside a public amphitheater, Olivier brought a § 1983 suit under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement against him in the future. The Fifth Circuit, applying its precedent construing this Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), held that Olivier's prior conviction barred his § 1983 suit because even the prospective relief it seeks would necessarily undermine his prior conviction. The Fifth Circuit acknowledged the "friction" between its decision and those of this Court and other circuits. Over vigorous dissents, the Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, as the Fifth Circuit holds in conflict with the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, this Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars § 1983 claims seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional. 2. Whether, as the Fifth Circuit and at least four others hold in conflict with five other circuits, Heck v. Humphrey bars § 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-60566

First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin | 12/02/25 | Docket #: 24-781 24-781 FIRST CHOICE WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTERS, INC. V. PLATKIN DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5088105 CERT. GRANTED 6/16/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: New Jersey's Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors' names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General's motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice's federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice's constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court. The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided per curiam decision. Judge Bibas would have held the action ripe as indistinguishable from . Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Banta , 594 U.S. 595, 618-19 (2021). But the majority concluded First Choice's claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court. In doing so, the majority followed the rule of the Fifth Circuit and split from the Ninth Circuit. It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues. The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-3124

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, Att'y Gen. | 12/01/25 | Docket #: 24-777 24-777 URIAS-ORELLANA V. BONDI DECISION BELOW: 121 F.4th 327 CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that noncitizens on American soil are generally eligible for asylum if they qualify as a "refugee." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) (A). A refugee is someone with "a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." Id. § 1101(a)(42). Noncitizens are presumptively eligible for asylum if they have "suffered persecution in the past." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). If ordered removed by an immigration judge (IJ), noncitizens may appeal the removal order-and with it, the denial of asylum-to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). From there, "judicial review" is available in "an appropriate court of appeals." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). The INA mandates judicial deference on "findings of fact" and three other kinds of administrative decisions. Id. § 1252(b)(4). The statute also explicitly provides for judicial review of the BIA's decisions on "questions of law," but does not establish a deferential standard of review for such decisions. Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D), (b)(9). The question presented is: Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the BIA's judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute "persecution" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-1042

Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment | 12/01/25 | Docket #: 24-171 24-171 COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT DECISION BELOW: 93 F.4th 222 CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. This Court has held that a business commits contributory copyright infringement when it "distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster , Ltd ., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). The courts of appeals have split three ways over the scope of that ruling, developing differing standards for when it is appropriate to hold an online service provider secondarily liable for copyright infringement committed by users. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it? 2. Generally, a defendant cannot be held liable as a willful violator of the law-and subject to increased penalties-without proof that it knew or recklessly disregarded a high risk that its own conduct was illegal. In conflict with the Eighth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit upheld an instruction allowing the jury to find willfulness if Cox knew its subscribers ' conduct was illegal-without proof Cox knew its own conduct in not terminating them was illegal. Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-1168

Rutherford v. United States | 11/12/25 | Docket #: 24-820 24-820 RUTHERFORD V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 120 F.4th 360 CONSOLIDATED FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT WITH 24-860 CERT. GRANTED 6/6/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The compassionate-release statute permits courts to reduce a prisoner's sentence if the court finds that "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Congress placed only two limits on what can count as an "extraordinary and compelling reason": (1) it must be "consistent with" "applicable policy statements" from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, id .; and (2) "[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extra- ordinary and compelling reason," 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). Sections 401 and 403 of the First Step Act of 2018 reduced penalties for certain drug and firearm offenses going forward. Because of these changes, individuals sentenced today for these offenses often face mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment decades shorter than they would have received before the First Step Act. The question presented is: Whether, as four circuits permit but six others prohibit, a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act's prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1904

Fernandez v. United States | 11/12/25 | Docket #: 24-556 24-556 FERNANDEZ V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 104 F.4th 420 THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER A COMBINATION OF “ EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING REASONS ” THAT MAY WARRANT A DISCRETIONARY SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(1)(A) CAN INCLUDE REASONS THAT MAY ALSO BE ALLEGED AS GROUNDS FOR VACATUR OF A SENTENCE UNDER 28 U. S. C. §2255.   CERT. GRANTED 5/27/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court has broad discretion to reduce the term of imprisonment in any case if it finds that "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction." The sole limitation Congress placed on that discretion is found in 18 U.S.C. § 994(t), which provides that "[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason." In reversing the district court's grant of compassionate release to Joe Fernandez, the Second Circuit held that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to have considered evidence bearing on Fernandez's potential innocence as well to have found a disparity in sentences between Fernandez and several of his co-defendants who were cooperating witnesses. That decision was contrary to decisions of the First and Ninth Circuits, which have each held that district courts are not restricted with respect to matters they may consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) other than as set forth by Congress. The question presented is: Whether the Second Circuit erred in recognizing extra-textual limitations on what information a court may consider when determining whether there exist extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) (A). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-3122

GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal | 11/10/25 | Docket #: 24-758 24-758 THE GEO GROUP, INC. V. MENOCAL DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 4544184 CERT. GRANTED 6/2/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the courts of appeals "have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts." This Court has held that certain orders are immediately appealable under Section 1291 even though they do not terminate the litigation. Such "collateral orders" include orders denying claims of absolute immunity, qualified immunity, and state sovereign immunity. The question presented, which has divided the circuit courts 5-3, is whether an order denying a government contractor's claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1409

Landor v. LA DOC | 11/10/25 | Docket #: 23-1197 23-1197 LANDOR V. LA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS DECISION BELOW: 82 F.4th 337 CERT. GRANTED 6/23/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Congress has enacted two "sister" statutes to protect religious exercise: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq ., and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq . In Tanzin v. Tanvir , 592 U.S. 43 (2020), this Court held that an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of RFRA. RLUIPA's relevant language is identical. The question presented is whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of RLUIPA. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-30686

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, President of U.S. | 11/05/25 | Docket #: 24-1287 24-1287 LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. V. TRUMP DECISION BELOW: THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. CONSOLIDATED WITH 25-250 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. EXPEDITED BRIEFING. THE CASES WILL BE SET FOR ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST WEEK OF THE NOVEMBER 2025 ARGUMENT SESSION.       CERT. GRANTED 9/9/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. ("IEEPA") permits the President, upon a valid emergency declaration, to "investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest[.]" Id. § l 702(a)(1)(B). Until now, no President in IEEPA's nearly 50-year history has ever invoked it to impose tariffs-let alone the sweeping worldwide tariffs imposed pursuant to the executive orders challenged here. The question presented is: Whether IEEPA authorizes the President to impose tariffs. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 25-5202

Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist | 11/04/25 | Docket #: 24-724 24-724 HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP V. PALMQUIST DECISION BELOW: 103 F.4th 294 CERT. GRANTED 4/28/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Respondents, citizens of Texas, filed this products-liability suit in state court against Petitioners Hain Celestial Group, Inc., then a citizen of Delaware and New York, and Whole Foods, Inc., a citizen of Texas. Hain removed based on diversity jurisdiction, arguing that Whole Foods should be dismissed as fraudulently joined. The district court agreed, dismissing Whole Foods with prejudice. After two additional years of federal- court litigation and a two-week jury trial, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law to Hain. On appeal, without ruling on the merits, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing Whole Foods, vacated the final judgment, and ordered the matter remanded to state court to start from scratch. Relying on Respondents' post- removal amended complaint, the panel held, in conflict with several other courts of appeals, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment as to the completely diverse parties before it. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal. 2. Whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a nondiverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-40197

Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton | 11/04/25 | Docket #: 24-808 24-808 CONEY ISLAND AUTO PARTS, INC. V. BURTON DECISION BELOW: 109 F.4th 438 CERT. GRANTED 6/6/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Well-settled legal principles dictate that a judgment entered in the absence of personal jurisdiction is void. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) authorizes federal courts to vacate a judgment when it is void. A motion seeking vacatur, however, "must be made within a reasonable time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Each of the United States Courts of Appeals other than the Sixth Circuit holds that there is effectively no time limit for moving to vacate a judgment, notwithstanding Rule 60(c)(1)'s "reasonable time" requirement, when the judgment is obtained in the absence of personal jurisdiction. The common thinking among these circuits is that a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void ab initio. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is the sole outlier. In this case, it held that Rule 60(c)(1) governs the timing of a motion seeking vacatur of a void judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). The question presented is: Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-5881

Hencely v. Fluor Corp. | 11/03/25 | Docket #: 24-924 24-924 HENCELY V. FLUOR CORP. DECISION BELOW: 120 F.4th 412 CERT. GRANTED 6/2/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Former U.S. Army Specialist Winston T. Hencely was critically and permanently injured by a suicide bomber inside Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The bomber, Ahmad Nayeb, worked on base for a government contractor. An Army investigation found that the attack's primary contributing factor was the contractor's actions in breach of its Army contract and in violation of the military's instructions to supervise Nayeb. Hencely sued the government contractor for negligence under South Carolina law. He did not sue the military under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Even so, the Fourth Circuit held that Hencely's state claims are preempted by unspoken "federal interests" emanating from an FTCA exception. Invoking Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. , 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the court of appeals held that the FTCA's exception immunizing the government for "[a]ny claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces ... during time of war," 28 U.S.C. §2680(j), barred Hencely's South Carolina claims against the contractor . The decision below reaffirmed a 3-1-1 split among the Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits over Boyle 's reach when contractors defend against state tort claims by invoking §2680(j). The question presented is: Should Boyle be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the FTCA's combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-1994

Rico v. United States | 11/03/25 | Docket #: 24-1056 24-1056 RICO V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 720900 CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-2662

Case v. Montana | 10/15/25 | Docket #: 24-624 24-624 CASE V. MONTANA DECISION BELOW: 553 P.3d 985 CERT. GRANTED 6/2/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: DA 23-0136

Louisiana v. Callais | 10/15/25 | Docket #: 24-109 Background: Louisiana was ordered by federal courts to create a second majority-Black congressional district to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The Louisiana Legislature responded by passing S.B. 8, which created the required second majority-Black district. However, a different federal court then ruled that S.B. 8 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and blocked its implementation. The Core Issue: Can a state be required to create a majority-minority district under the Voting Rights Act, but then have that same district struck down as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering? Louisiana argues this creates an impossible legal bind. Questions Before the Court: Whether the lower court erred in finding that race predominated in drawing S.B. 8, whether the map fails strict scrutiny review, whether certain legal tests were properly applied, and whether courts should even be deciding these redistricting disputes. Current Status: The case has been restored for reargument. The Court has ordered supplemental briefing on whether intentionally creating majority-minority districts violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. Significance: This case could reshape how states balance Voting Rights Act compliance with constitutional requirements, potentially affecting redistricting nationwide.

Ellingburg v. United States | 10/14/25 | Docket #: 24-482 24-482 ELLINGBURG V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 113 F.4th 839 JOHN F. BASH, ESQUIRE, OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE , IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-3129

Bowe v. United States | 10/14/25 | Docket #: 24-5438 24-5438 BOWE V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: CA 11 ORDER 6/27/2024 KASDIN M. MITCHELL, ESQUIRE, OF DALLAS, TEXAS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW AS TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. CERT. GRANTED 1/17/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[ a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. ” (emphasis added). The first question presented is: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. * * * Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[ t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari. ” (emphasis added). The second question presented is: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-11704

USPS v. Konan | 10/08/25 | Docket #: 24-351 24-351 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE V. KONAN DECISION BELOW: 96 F.4th 799 CERT. GRANTED 4/21/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), ch. 753, 60 Stat. 842 (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq .), generally waives the United States' sovereign immunity for suits seeking damages "for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of the federal government "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1). The FTCA, however, excepts from that waiver of immunity "[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." 28 U.S.C. 2680(b). The question presented is as follows: Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter. 28 U.S.C. 2680(b). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-10179

Bost v. IL Bd. of Elections | 10/08/25 | Docket #: 24-568 24-568 BOST V. ILLINOIS BOARD OF ELECTIONS DECISION BELOW: 114 F.4th 634 CERT. GRANTED 6/2/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day. 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7; and 3 U.S.C. § 1. Several states, including Illinois, have enacted state laws that allow ballots to be received and counted after Election Day. Petitioners contend these state laws are preempted under the Elections and Electors Clauses. Petitioners sued to enjoin Illinois' law allowing ballots to be received up to fourteen days after Election Day. The sole question presented here is whether Petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-2644

Barrett v. United States | 10/07/25 | Docket #: 24-5774 24-5774 BARRETT V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 102 F.4th 60 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CHARLES L. McCLOUD, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE , IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. CERT. GRANTED 3/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: I. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and§ 924(j), a question that divides seven circuits but about which the Solicitor General and Petitioner agree. II. Whether "Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under §924(c) (3)(A), a question left open after" United States v. Taylor , 596 U.S. 845 (2022). United States v. Stoney , 62 F.4th 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2023). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-1379

Chiles v. Salazar | 10/07/25 | Docket #: 24-539 24-539 CHILES V. SALAZAR DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 1178 CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them. A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex. Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express. Its content- and viewpoint-based Counseling Restriction prohibits counseling conversations with minors that might encourage them to change their "sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions," while allowing conversations that provide "[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for ... identity exploration and development, including ... [a]ssistance to a person undergoing gender transition." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12- 245-202(3.5). The Tenth Circuit upheld this ban as a regulation of Chiles's conduct, not speech. In doing so, the court deepened a circuit split between the Eleventh and Third Circuits, which do not treat counseling conversations as conduct, and the Ninth Circuit, which does. The question presented is: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1445, 23-1002

Villarreal v. Texas | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-557 24-557 VILLARREAL V. TEXAS DECISION BELOW: 707 S.W.3d 138 CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a trial court abridges the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: PD-0048-20

Berk v. Choy | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-440 24-440 BERK V. CHOY DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5354482 CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents a clear, recognized, entrenched conflict over an important question about the application of state procedural rules in federal court. Delaware, like numerous states, requires that in certain actions the plaintiff must also file an affidavit of merit ("AOM") with the complaint. See 18 Del. C. § 6853. An AOM is an affidavit signed by an expert stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that each defendant has committed the alleged misconduct. See id. § 6853(a)(l). The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits hold that AOM provisions and comparable statutes do not govern actions in federal court because they answer the same question as-and therefore conflict with-several different Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third and Tenth circuits, in contrast, hold that they present "no conflict" with any Federal Rules. In the decision below, the Third Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, for at least the fifth time, refused to hold that an AOM statute conflicts with any Federal Rules. Judge Phipps "concur[red] in only the judgment." Third Circuit precedent required him to vote to affirm, he explained, but ''writing on a clean slate ... he may not [have] arrive[d] at that same conclusion." The question presented is: Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1620

Trump v. CASA, Inc. | 05/15/25 | Docket #: 24A884

OK Charter School Board v. Drummond | 04/30/25 | Docket #: 24-394 24-394 OK CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD V. DRUMMOND DECISION BELOW: 558 P.3d 1 CONSOLIDATED WITH 24-396 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. JUSTICE BARRETT TOOK NO PART. EXPEDITED BRIEFING. CERT. GRANTED 1/24/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: This Court has "repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits." Carson as next friend of O. C. v. Makin , 596 U.S. 767, 778 (2022). Three times, the Court has applied that principle to strike down "state efforts to withhold otherwise available public benefits from religious organizations." Id . at 778-79 (citing Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer , 582 U.S. 449 (2017); Espinoza v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue , 591 U.S. 464 (2020)). Contrary to those precedents, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a state can exclude privately owned and operated religious charter schools from its charter-school program by enforcing state-law bans on "sectarian" and religiously affiliated charter schools. The court also held that a charter school engages in state action for constitutional purposes when it contracts with the state to provide publicly funded education. These rulings implicate an entrenched circuit split and present two questions for review: 1. Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students. 2. Whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state's charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or whether a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the Establishment Clause requires. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 121,694

Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis | 04/29/25 | Docket #: 24-304

Martin v. United States | 04/29/25 | Docket #: 24-362

Soto v. United States | 04/28/25 | Docket #: 24-320

A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools | 04/28/25 | Docket #: 24-249

Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA | 04/23/25 | Docket #: 24-7

CIR v. Zuch | 04/22/25 | Docket #: 24-416

Mahmoud v. Taylor | 04/22/25 | Docket #: 24-297

Parrish v. United States | 04/21/25 | Docket #: 24-275

Kennedy, Sec. of H&HS v. Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. | 04/21/25 | Docket #: 24-316

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic | 04/02/25 | Docket #: 23-1275

Fuld v. PLO | 04/01/25 | Docket #: 24-20

Rivers v. Guerrero | 03/31/25 | Docket #: 23-1345

Catholic Charities Bureau v. WI Labor Review Comm'n | 03/31/25 | Docket #: 24-154

FCC v. Consumers' Research | 03/26/25 | Docket #: 24-354

Oklahoma v. EPA | 03/25/25 | Docket #: 23-1067

EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. | 03/25/25 | Docket #: 23-1229

Riley v. Bondi, Att'y Gen. | 03/24/25 | Docket #: 23-1270

Louisiana v. Callais | 03/24/25 | Docket #: 24-109

NRC v. Texas | 03/05/25 | Docket #: 23-1300

Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos | 03/04/25 | Docket #: 23-1141

BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman | 03/03/25 | Docket #: 23-1259

CCDevas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. | 03/03/25 | Docket #: 23-1201

Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services | 02/26/25 | Docket #: 23-1039

Perttu v. Richards | 02/25/25 | Docket #: 23-1324

Esteras v. United States | 02/25/25 | Docket #: 23-7483

Gutierrez v. Saenz | 02/24/25 | Docket #: 23-7809

Cunningham v. Cornell University | 01/22/25 | Docket #: 23-1007

Barnes v. Felix | 01/22/25 | Docket #: 23-1239

McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp. | 01/21/25 | Docket #: 23-1226

FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. | 01/21/25 | Docket #: 23-1187

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | 01/15/25 | Docket #: 23-1122

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services | 01/14/25 | Docket #: 23-971

Thompson v. United States | 01/14/25 | Docket #: 23-1095

Stanley v. City of Sanford | 01/13/25 | Docket #: 23-997

Hewitt v. United States | 01/13/25 | Docket #: 23-1002

TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | 01/10/25 | Docket #: 24-656

Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. | 12/11/24 | Docket #: 23-900

Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County | 12/10/24 | Docket #: 23-975

Feliciano v. Dept. of Transportation | 12/09/24 | Docket #: 23-861

Kousisis v. United States | 12/09/24 | Docket #: 23-909

United States v. Skrmetti | 12/04/24 | Docket #: 23-477

Hungary v. Simon | 12/03/24 | Docket #: 23-867

United States v. Miller | 12/02/24 | Docket #: 23-824

FDA v. Wages and White Lion | 12/02/24 | Docket #: 23-1038

NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB | 11/13/24 | Docket #: 23-970

Delligatti v. United States | 11/12/24 | Docket #: 23-825

Velazquez v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | 11/12/24 | Docket #: 23-929

Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank | 11/06/24 | Docket #: 23-980

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera | 11/05/24 | Docket #: 23-217

Advocate Christ Medical v. Becerra, Sec. of H&HS | 11/05/24 | Docket #: 23-715

Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. U.S., ex rel. Heath | 11/04/24 | Docket #: 23-1127

San Francisco v. EPA | 10/16/24 | Docket #: 23-753

Bufkin v. McDonough, Sec. of VA | 10/16/24 | Docket #: 23-713

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, Sec. of Homeland Security | 10/15/24 | Docket #: 23-583

Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn | 10/15/24 | Docket #: 23-365

Glossip v. Oklahoma | 10/09/24 | Docket #: 22-7466

Lackey v. Stinnie | 10/08/24 | Docket #: 23-621

Garland, Att'y Gen. v. VanDerStok | 10/08/24 | Docket #: 23-852

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger | 10/07/24 | Docket #: 23-677

Williams v. Washington | 10/07/24 | Docket #: 23-191

Trump v. United States | 04/25/24 | Docket #: 23-939

Moyle v. United States | 04/24/24 | Docket #: 23-726

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney | 04/23/24 | Docket #: 23-367

Dept. of State v. Munoz | 04/23/24 | Docket #: 23-334

Smith v. Spizzirri | 04/22/24 | Docket #: 22-1218

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson | 04/22/24 | Docket #: 23-175

Thornell v. Jones | 04/17/24 | Docket #: 22-982

Fischer v. United States | 04/16/24 | Docket #: 23-5572

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon | 04/15/24 | Docket #: 23-50

Snyder v. United States | 04/15/24 | Docket #: 23-108

Connelly v. United States | 03/27/24 | Docket #: 23-146

Erlinger v. United States | 03/27/24 | Docket #: 23-370

FDA v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine | 03/26/24 | Docket #: 23-235

Harrow v. Dept. of Defense | 03/25/24 | Docket #: 23-21

Becerra, Sec. of H&HS v. San Carlos Apache Tribe | 03/25/24 | Docket #: 23-250

Texas v. New Mexico | 01/08/18 | Docket #: 141-Orig

Gonzalez v. Trevino | 03/20/24 | Docket #: 22-1025

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. | 03/19/24 | Docket #: 22-1079

Diaz v. United States | 03/19/24 | Docket #: 23-14

NRA v. Vullo | 03/18/24 | Docket #: 22-842

Murthy, Surgeon Gen. v. Missouri | 03/18/24 | Docket #: 23-411

Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski | 02/28/24 | Docket #: 23-3

Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Cargill | 02/28/24 | Docket #: 22-976

Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A. | 02/27/24 | Docket #: 22-529

McIntosh v. United States | 02/27/24 | Docket #: 22-7386

NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton | 02/26/24 | Docket #: 22-555

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC | 02/26/24 | Docket #: 22-277

Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy | 02/21/24 | Docket #: 22-1078

Ohio v. EPA | 02/21/24 | Docket #: 23A349

Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC | 02/20/24 | Docket #: 23-51

Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, FRS | 02/20/24 | Docket #: 22-1008

Trump v. Anderson | 02/08/24 | Docket #: 23-719

Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, Sec. of Comm. | 01/17/24 | Docket #: 22-451

Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce | 01/17/24 | Docket #: 22-1219

Devillier v. Texas | 01/16/24 | Docket #: 22-913

Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. | 01/16/24 | Docket #: 22-1165

Smith v. Arizona | 01/10/24 | Docket #: 22-899

United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC | 01/09/24 | Docket #: 22-1238

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado | 01/09/24 | Docket #: 22-1074

FBI v. Fikre | 01/08/24 | Docket #: 22-1178

Campos-Chaves v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | 01/08/24 | Docket #: 22-674

Muldrow v. St. Louis | 12/06/23 | Docket #: 22-193

Moore v. United States | 12/05/23 | Docket #: 22-800

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. | 12/04/23 | Docket #: 23-124

SEC v. Jarkesy | 11/29/23 | Docket #: 22-859

Wilkinson v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | 11/28/23 | Docket #: 22-666

McElrath v. Georgia | 11/28/23 | Docket #: 22-721

Brown v. United States | 11/27/23 | Docket #: 22-6389

Rudisill v. McDonough, Sec. of VA | 11/08/23 | Docket #: 22-888

United States v. Rahimi | 11/07/23 | Docket #: 22-915

Dept. of Agric. Rural Dev. v. Kirtz | 11/06/23 | Docket #: 22-846

Vidal, Under Sec. of Comm. v. Elster | 11/01/23 | Docket #: 22-704

Lindke v. Freed | 10/31/23 | Docket #: 22-611

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier | 10/31/23 | Docket #: 22-324

Culley v. Marshall | 10/30/23 | Docket #: 22-585

Alexander v. SC Conference of NAACP | 10/11/23 | Docket #: 22-807

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC | 10/10/23 | Docket #: 22-500

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC | 10/10/23 | Docket #: 22-660

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer | 10/04/23 | Docket #: 22-429

CFPB v. Com. Fin. Services Assn. | 10/03/23 | Docket #: 22-448

Pulsifer v. United States | 10/02/23 | Docket #: 22-340

Tyler v. Hennepin County | 04/26/23 | Docket #: 22-166

Yegiazaryan v. Smagin | 04/25/23 | Docket #: 22-381

Lac du Flambeau Band v. Coughlin | 04/24/23 | Docket #: 22-227

Dupree v. Younger | 04/24/23 | Docket #: 22-210

Counterman v. Colorado | 04/19/23 | Docket #: 22-138

U.S., ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. | 04/18/23 | Docket #: 21-1326

Groff v. DeJoy | 04/18/23 | Docket #: 22-174

Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani | 04/17/23 | Docket #: 22-200

Pugin v. Garland | 04/17/23 | Docket #: 22-23

Karcho Polselli v. IRS | 03/29/23 | Docket #: 21-1599

Samia v. United States | 03/29/23 | Docket #: 22-196

Lora v. United States | 03/28/23 | Docket #: 22-49

Smith v. United States | 03/28/23 | Docket #: 21-1576

United States v. Hansen | 03/27/23 | Docket #: 22-179

Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi | 03/27/23 | Docket #: 21-757

Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products | 03/22/23 | Docket #: 22-148

Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski | 03/21/23 | Docket #: 22-105

Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. | 03/21/23 | Docket #: 21-1043

Arizona v. Navajo Nation | 03/20/23 | Docket #: 21-1484

New York v. New Jersey | 03/01/23 | Docket #: 156-Orig

Dept. of Education v. Brown | 02/28/23 | Docket #: 22-535

Biden v. Nebraska | 02/28/23 | Docket #: 22-506

Dubin v. United States | 02/27/23 | Docket #: 22-10

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh | 02/22/23 | Docket #: 21-1496

Gonzalez v. Google LLC | 02/21/23 | Docket #: 21-1333

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools | 01/18/23 | Docket #: 21-887

Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States | 01/17/23 | Docket #: 21-1450

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | 01/17/23 | Docket #: 21-1436

Financial Oversight Board v. CPI | 01/11/23 | Docket #: 22-96

Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters | 01/10/23 | Docket #: 21-1449

OH Adjutant Gen.'s Dept. v. FLRA | 01/09/23 | Docket #: 21-1454

In Re Grand Jury | 01/09/23 | Docket #: 21-1397

Moore v. Harper | 12/07/22 | Docket #: 21-1271

Bartenwerfer v. Buckley | 12/06/22 | Docket #: 21-908

U.S., ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health | 12/06/22 | Docket #: 21-1052

MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC | 12/05/22 | Docket #: 21-1270

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis | 12/05/22 | Docket #: 21-476

Wilkins v. United States | 11/30/22 | Docket #: 21-1164

United States v. Texas | 11/29/22 | Docket #: 22-58

Ciminelli v. United State | 11/28/22 | Docket #: 21-1170

Percoco v. United States | 11/28/22 | Docket #: 21-1158

Haaland v. Brackeen | 11/09/22 | Docket #: 21-376

Health and Hospital Corp. v. Talevski | 11/08/22 | Docket #: 21-806

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. | 11/08/22 | Docket #: 21-1168

SEC v. Cochran | 11/07/22 | Docket #: 21-1239

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC | 11/07/22 | Docket #: 21-86

Bittner v. United States | 11/02/22 | Docket #: 21-1195

Cruz v. Arizona | 11/01/22 | Docket #: 21-846

Jones v. Hendrix | 11/01/22 | Docket #: 21-857

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard | 10/31/22 | Docket #: 20-1199

Students for Fair Admissions v. University of NC | 10/31/22 | Docket #: 21-707

Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt | 10/12/22 | Docket #: 21-984

Andy Warhol Found., Inc. v. Goldsmith | 10/12/22 | Docket #: 21-869

Reed v. Goertz | 10/11/22 | Docket #: 21-442

National Pork Producers v. Ross | 10/11/22 | Docket #: 21-468

Arellano v. McDonough | 10/04/22 | Docket #: 21-432

Merrill v. Milligan | 10/04/22 | Docket #: 21-1086

Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin | 10/03/22 | Docket #: 145-Orig

Sackett v. EPA | 10/03/22 | Docket #: 21-454

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta | 04/27/22 | Docket #: 21-429

Shoop v. Twyford | 04/26/22 | Docket #: 21-511

Biden v. Texas | 04/26/22 | Docket #: 21-954

Nance v. Ward | 04/25/22 | Docket #: 21-439

Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. | 04/25/22 | Docket #: 21-418

Vega v. Tekoh | 04/20/22 | Docket #: 21-499

Kemp v. United States | 04/19/22 | Docket #: 21-5726

George v. McDonough | 04/19/22 | Docket #: 21-234

Siegel v. Fitzgerald | 04/18/22 | Docket #: 21-441

United States v. Washington | 04/18/22 | Docket #: 21-404

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana | 03/30/22 | Docket #: 20-1573

Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety | 03/29/22 | Docket #: 20-603

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon | 03/28/22 | Docket #: 21-309

LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. | 03/28/22 | Docket #: 20-807

ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. | 03/23/22 | Docket #: 21-401

Golan v. Saada | 03/22/22 | Docket #: 20-1034

Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP | 03/21/22 | Docket #: 21-248

Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. | 03/21/22 | Docket #: 21-328

Egbert v. Boule | 03/02/22 | Docket #: 21-147

Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc. | 03/01/22 | Docket #: 20-1641

Ruan v. United States | 03/01/22 | Docket #: 20-1410

West Virginia v. EPA | 02/28/22 | Docket #: 20-1530

Arizona v. San Francisco | 02/23/22 | Docket #: 20-1775

Denezpi v. United States | 02/22/22 | Docket #: 20-7622

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas | 02/22/22 | Docket #: 20-493

Concepcion v. United States | 01/19/22 | Docket #: 20-1650

Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate | 01/19/22 | Docket #: 21-12

Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection | 01/18/22 | Docket #: 20-1566

Shurtleff v. Boston | 01/18/22 | Docket #: 20-1800

Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue | 01/12/22 | Docket #: 20-1472

Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez | 01/11/22 | Docket #: 20-322

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez | 01/11/22 | Docket #: 19-896

Gallardo v. Marstiller | 01/10/22 | Docket #: 20-1263

Biden v. Missouri | 01/07/22 | Docket #: 21A240

Nat. Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Dept. of Labor | 01/07/22 | Docket #: 21A244

Shinn v. Ramirez | 12/08/21 | Docket #: 20-1009

Carson v. Makin | 12/08/21 | Docket #: 20-1088

United States v. Taylor | 12/07/21 | Docket #: 20-1459

Hughes v. Northwestern University | 12/06/21 | Docket #: 19-1401

Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | 12/06/21 | Docket #: 20-979

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health | 12/01/21 | Docket #: 19-1392

American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra | 11/30/21 | Docket #: 20-1114

Cummings v. Premier Rehab | 11/30/21 | Docket #: 20-219

Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation | 11/29/21 | Docket #: 20-1312

Austin v. Reagan National Advertising | 11/10/21 | Docket #: 20-1029

Ramirez v. Collier | 11/09/21 | Docket #: 21-5592

United States v. Vaello-Madero | 11/09/21 | Docket #: 20-303

Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. | 11/08/21 | Docket #: 20-915

FBI v. Fazaga | 11/08/21 | Docket #: 20-828

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen | 11/03/21 | Docket #: 20-843

Badgerow v. Walters | 11/02/21 | Docket #: 20-1143

Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson | 11/02/21 | Docket #: 20-804

United States v. Texas | 11/01/21 | Docket #: 21-588

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson | 11/01/21 | Docket #: 21-463

Babcock v. Kijakazi | 10/13/21 | Docket #: 20-480

United States v. Tsarnaev | 10/13/21 | Docket #: 20-443

Thompson v. Clark | 10/12/21 | Docket #: 20-659

Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center | 10/12/21 | Docket #: 20-601

United States v. Zubaydah | 10/06/21 | Docket #: 20-827

Hemphill v. New York | 10/05/21 | Docket #: 20-637

Brown v. Davenport | 10/05/21 | Docket #: 20-826

Wooden v. United States | 10/04/21 | Docket #: 20-5279

Mississippi v. Tennessee | 10/04/21 | Docket #: 143-Orig

Terry v. United States | 05/04/21 | Docket #: 20-5904

Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey | 04/28/21 | Docket #: 19-1039

Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L. | 04/28/21 | Docket #: 20-255

United States v. Palomar-Santiago | 04/27/21 | Docket #: 20-437

Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn. | 04/27/21 | Docket #: 20-472

Guam v. United States | 04/26/21 | Docket #: 20-382

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta | 04/26/21 | Docket #: 19-251

Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. | 04/21/21 | Docket #: 20-440

San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L.P. | 04/21/21 | Docket #: 20-334

United States v. Gary | 04/20/21 | Docket #: 20-444

Greer v. United States | 04/20/21 | Docket #: 19-8709

Santos Sanchez v. Mayorkas | 04/19/21 | Docket #: 20-315

Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation | 04/19/21 | Docket #: 20-543

National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston | 03/31/21 | Docket #: 20-512

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez | 03/30/21 | Docket #: 20-297

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System | 03/29/21 | Docket #: 20-222

Caniglia v. Strom | 03/24/21 | Docket #: 20-157

United States v. Cooley | 03/23/21 | Docket #: 19-1414

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid | 03/22/21 | Docket #: 20-107

Carr v. Saul | 03/03/21 | Docket #: 19-1442

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee | 03/02/21 | Docket #: 19-1257

United States v. Arthrex, Inc. | 03/01/21 | Docket #: 19-1434

Lange v. California | 02/24/21 | Docket #: 20-18

Wilkinson v. Ming Dai | 02/23/21 | Docket #: 19-1155

Florida v. Georgia | 02/22/21 | Docket #: 142-Orig

BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore | 01/19/21 | Docket #: 19-1189

FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project | 01/19/21 | Docket #: 19-1231

AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC | 01/13/21 | Docket #: 19-508

Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski | 01/12/21 | Docket #: 19-968

Pham v. Guzman Chavez | 01/11/21 | Docket #: 19-897

Collins v. Mnuchin | 12/09/20 | Docket #: 19-422

Harry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. | 12/08/20 | Docket #: 19-963

Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid | 12/08/20 | Docket #: 19-511

Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp | 12/07/20 | Docket #: 19-351

Republic of Hungary v. Simon | 12/07/20 | Docket #: 18-1447

Edwards v. Vannoy | 12/02/20 | Docket #: 19-5807

CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS | 12/01/20 | Docket #: 19-930

Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe | 12/01/20 | Docket #: 19-416

Van Buren v. United States | 11/30/20 | Docket #: 19-783

Trump v. New York | 11/30/20 | Docket #: 20-366

California v. Texas | 11/10/20 | Docket #: 19-840

Brownback v. King | 11/09/20 | Docket #: 19-546

Niz-Chavez v. Barr | 11/09/20 | Docket #: 19-863

Fulton v. Philadelphia | 11/04/20 | Docket #: 19-123

Borden v. United States | 11/03/20 | Docket #: 19-5410

Jones v. Mississippi | 11/03/20 | Docket #: 18-1259

Salinas v. Railroad Retirement Bd. | 11/02/20 | Docket #: 19-199

United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc. | 11/02/20 | Docket #: 19-547

Pereida v. Barr | 10/14/20 | Docket #: 19-438

Torres v. Madrid | 10/14/20 | Docket #: 19-292

Chicago v. Fulton | 10/13/20 | Docket #: 19-357

United States v. Briggs | 10/13/20 | Docket #: 19-108

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court | 10/07/20 | Docket #: 19-368

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. | 10/07/20 | Docket #: 18-956

Tanzin v. Tanvir | 10/06/20 | Docket #: 19-71

Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn. | 10/06/20 | Docket #: 18-540

Texas v. New Mexico | 10/05/20 | Docket #: 65-Orig

Carney v. Adams | 10/05/20 | Docket #: 19-309

Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca | 05/13/20 | Docket #: 19-518

Chiafalo v. Washington | 05/13/20 | Docket #: 19-465

Trump v. Vance | 05/12/20 | Docket #: 19-635

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP | 05/12/20 | Docket #: 19-715

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru | 05/11/20 | Docket #: 19-267

McGirt v. Oklahoma | 05/11/20 | Docket #: 18-9526

Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. | 05/06/20 | Docket #: 19-631

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania | 05/06/20 | Docket #: 19-431

Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc. | 05/05/20 | Docket #: 19-177

Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. | 05/04/20 | Docket #: 19-46

June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo | 03/04/20 | Docket #: 18-1323

Liu v. SEC | 03/03/20 | Docket #: 18-1501

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | 03/03/20 | Docket #: 19-7

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam | 03/02/20 | Docket #: 19-161

Nasrallah v. Barr | 03/02/20 | Docket #: 18-1432

Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez | 02/26/20 | Docket #: 18-8369

United States v. Sineneng-Smith | 02/25/20 | Docket #: 19-67

Opati v. Republic of Sudan | 02/24/20 | Docket #: 17-1268

United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass'n | 02/24/20 | Docket #: 18-1584

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue | 01/22/20 | Docket #: 18-1195

GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC | 01/21/20 | Docket #: 18-1048

Shular v. United States | 01/21/20 | Docket #: 18-6662

Babb v. Wilkie | 01/15/20 | Docket #: 18-882

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. | 01/14/20 | Docket #: 18-1233

Kelly v. United States | 01/14/20 | Docket #: 18-1059

Thole v. U. S. Bank, N. A. | 01/13/20 | Docket #: 17-1712

Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. | 01/13/20 | Docket #: 18-1086

McKinney v. Arizona | 12/11/19 | Docket #: 18-1109

Monasky v. Taglieri | 12/11/19 | Docket #: 18-935

Holguin-Hernandez v. United States | 12/10/19 | Docket #: 18-7739

Maine Community Health Options v. United States | 12/10/19 | Docket #: 18-1023

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP | 12/09/19 | Docket #: 18-916

Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr | 12/09/19 | Docket #: 18-776

Banister v. Davis | 12/04/19 | Docket #: 18-6943

Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma | 12/04/19 | Docket #: 18-1116

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian | 12/03/19 | Docket #: 17-1498

Rodriguez v. FDIC | 12/03/19 | Docket #: 18-1269

Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. | 12/02/19 | Docket #: 18-1150

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York | 12/02/19 | Docket #: 18-280

Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC | 11/13/19 | Docket #: 18-938

Comcast Corp. v. National Ass. of African American-Owned Media | 11/13/19 | Docket #: 18-1171

Hernández v. Mesa | 11/12/19 | Docket #: 17-1678

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. | 11/12/19 | Docket #: 18-587

Retirement Plans Comm. of IBM v. Jander | 11/06/19 | Docket #: 18-1165

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund | 11/06/19 | Docket #: 18-260

Allen v. Cooper | 11/05/19 | Docket #: 18-877

CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. | 11/05/19 | Docket #: 18-565

Kansas v. Glover | 11/04/19 | Docket #: 18-556

Barton v. Barr | 11/04/19 | Docket #: 18-725

Mathena v. Malvo | 10/16/19 | Docket #: 18-217

Rotkiske v. Klemm | 10/16/19 | Docket #: 18-328

Kansas v. Garcia | 10/16/19 | Docket #: 17-834

Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC | 10/15/19 | Docket #: 18-1334

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC | 10/08/19 | Docket #: 18-107

Bostock v. Clayton County | 10/08/19 | Docket #: 17-1618

Ramos v. Louisiana | 10/07/19 | Docket #: 18-5924

Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. | 10/07/19 | Docket #: 18-801

Kahler v. Kansas | 10/07/19 | Docket #: 18-6135

Taggart v. Lorenzen | 04/24/19 | Docket #: 18-489

Quarles v. United States | 04/24/19 | Docket #: 17-778

Rehaif v. United States | 04/23/19 | Docket #: 17-9560

Mitchell v. Wisconsin | 04/23/19 | Docket #: 18-6210

Department of Commerce v. New York | 04/23/19 | Docket #: 18-966

Fort Bend County v. Davis | 04/22/19 | Docket #: 18-525

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media | 04/22/19 | Docket #: 18-481

McDonough v. Smith | 04/17/19 | Docket #: 18-485

United States v. Davis | 04/17/19 | Docket #: 18-431

North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust | 04/16/19 | Docket #: 18-457

Parker Drilling Management Service, Ltd. v. Newton | 04/16/19 | Docket #: 18-389

Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian | 04/15/19 | Docket #: 18-459

Iancu v. Brunetti | 04/15/19 | Docket #: 18-302

Kisor v. Wilkie | 03/27/19 | Docket #: 18-15

Lamone v. Benisek | 03/26/19 | Docket #: 18-726

Rucho v. Common Cause | 03/26/19 | Docket #: 18-422

Dutra Group v. Batterton | 03/25/19 | Docket #: 18-266

PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. | 03/25/19 | Docket #: 17-1705

Flowers v. Mississippi | 03/20/19 | Docket #: 17-9572

Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt | 03/19/19 | Docket #: 18-315

Smith v. Berryhill | 03/18/19 | Docket #: 17-1606

Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill | 03/18/19 | Docket #: 18-281

American Legion v. American Humanist Ass. | 02/27/19 | Docket #: 17-1717

Mont v. United States | 02/26/19 | Docket #: 17-8995

United States v. Haymond | 02/26/19 | Docket #: 17-1672

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck | 02/25/19 | Docket #: 17-1702

Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC | 02/20/19 | Docket #: 17-1657

Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service | 02/19/19 | Docket #: 17-1594

Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Blair | 01/16/19 | Docket #: 18-96

Knick v. Township of Scott | 01/16/19 | Docket #: 17-647 (Reargued)

Azar v. Allina Health Services | 01/15/19 | Docket #: 17-1484

Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson | 01/15/19 | Docket #: 17-1471

Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc. | 01/14/19 | Docket #: 17-1625

Thacker v. TVA | 01/14/19 | Docket #: 17-1201

Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt | 01/09/19 | Docket #: 17-1299

Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC | 01/08/19 | Docket #: 17-571

Herrera v. Wyoming | 01/08/19 | Docket #: 17-532

Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP. | 01/07/19 | Docket #: 17-1307

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht | 01/07/19 | Docket #: 17-290

Gamble v. United States | 12/06/18 | Docket #: 17-646

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. | 12/04/18 | Docket #: 17-1229

Biestek v. Berryhill | 12/04/18 | Docket #: 17-1184

Lorenzo v. SEC | 12/03/18 | Docket #: 17-1077

Dawson v. Steager | 12/03/18 | Docket #: 17-419

Timbs v. Indiana | 11/28/18 | Docket #: 17-1091

Carpenter v. Murphy | 11/27/18 | Docket #: 17-1107

Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert | 11/27/18 | Docket #: 17-1094

Nieves v. Bartlett | 11/26/18 | Docket #: 17-1174

Apple Inc. v. Pepper | 11/26/18 | Docket #: 17-204

Culbertson v. Berryhill | 11/07/18 | Docket #: 17-773

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison | 11/07/18 | Docket #: 16-1094

BNSF R. Co. v. Loos | 11/06/18 | Docket #: 17-1042

Bucklew v. Precythe | 11/06/18 | Docket #: 17-8151

Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren | 11/05/18 | Docket #: 16-1275

Sturgeon v. Frost | 11/05/18 | Docket #: 17-949

Jam v. International Finance Corp. | 10/31/18 | Docket #: 17-1011

Frank v. Gaos | 10/31/18 | Docket #: 17-961

Garza v. Idaho | 10/30/18 | Docket #: 17-1026

Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc. | 10/30/18 | Docket #: 16-1498

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela | 10/29/18 | Docket #: 17-988

Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. | 10/29/18 | Docket #: 17-1272

Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries | 10/10/18 | Docket #: 17-1104

Nielsen v. Preap | 10/10/18 | Docket #: 16-1363

United States v. Stitt | 10/09/18 | Docket #: 17-765

Stokeling v. United States | 10/09/18 | Docket #: 17-5554

New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira | 10/03/18 | Docket #: 17-340

Knick v. Township of Scott | 10/03/18 | Docket #: 17-647

Madison v. Alabama | 10/02/18 | Docket #: 17-7505

Gundy v. United States | 10/02/18 | Docket #: 17-6086

Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. John Guido | 10/01/18 | Docket #: 17-587

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. | 10/01/18 | Docket #: 17-71

Trump v. Hawaii | 04/25/18 | Docket #: 17-965

Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. | 04/24/18 | Docket #: 16-1220

Abbott v. Perez | 04/24/18 | Docket #: 17-586

Chavez-Meza v. United States | 04/23/18 | Docket #: 17-5639

Fonseca Pereira v. Sessions | 04/23/18 | Docket #: 17-459

Lucia v. SEC | 04/23/18 | Docket #: 17-130

Washington v. United States | 04/18/18 | Docket #: 17-269

Lagos v. United States | 04/18/18 | Docket #: 16-1519

Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling | 04/17/18 | Docket #: 16-1215

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. | 04/17/18 | Docket #: 17-494

WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. | 04/16/18 | Docket #: 16-1011

Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States | 04/16/18 | Docket #: 17-530

Benisek v. Lamone | 03/28/18 | Docket #: 17-333

Koons v. United States | 03/27/18 | Docket #: 17-5716

Hughes v. United States | 03/27/18 | Docket #: 17-155

China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh | 03/26/18 | Docket #: 17-432

United States v. Sanchez-Gomez | 03/26/18 | Docket #: 17-312

Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren | 03/21/18 | Docket #: 17-387

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra | 03/20/18 | Docket #: 16-1140

Sveen v. Melin | 03/19/18 | Docket #: 16-1432

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky | 02/28/18 | Docket #: 16-1435

Lozman v. Riviera Beach | 02/27/18 | Docket #: 17-21

United States v. Microsoft Corp. | 02/27/18 | Docket #: 17-2

Ohio v. American Express Co. | 02/26/18 | Docket #: 16-1454

Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees | 02/26/18 | Docket #: 16-1466

Dahda v. United States | 02/21/18 | Docket #: 17-43

Rosales-Mireles v. United States | 02/21/18 | Docket #: 16-9493

City of Hays v. Vogt | 02/20/18 | Docket #: 16-1495

Currier v. Virginia | 02/20/18 | Docket #: 16-1348

McCoy v. Louisiana | 01/17/18 | Docket #: 16-8255

Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro | 01/17/18 | Docket #: 16-1362

Dalmazzi v. United States | 01/16/18 | Docket #: 16-961

Hall v. Hall | 01/16/18 | Docket #: 16-1150

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute | 01/10/18 | Docket #: 16-980

Collins v. Virginia | 01/09/18 | Docket #: 16-1027

Byrd v. United States | 01/09/18 | Docket #: 16-1371

Florida v. Georgia | 01/08/18 | Docket #: 142-Orig

Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado | 03/20/24 | Docket #: 141-Orig

Marinello v. United States | 12/06/17 | Docket #: 16-1144

Murphy v. Smith | 12/06/17 | Docket #: 16-1067

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n | 12/05/17 | Docket #: 16-111

Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran | 12/04/17 | Docket #: 16-534

Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. | 12/04/17 | Docket #: 16-476

Carpenter v. United States | 11/29/17 | Docket #: 16-402

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers | 11/28/17 | Docket #: 16-1276

Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund | 11/28/17 | Docket #: 15-1439

SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal | 11/27/17 | Docket #: 16-969

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC | 11/27/17 | Docket #: 16-712

Patchak v. Zinke | 11/07/17 | Docket #: 16-498

Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. | 11/06/17 | Docket #: 16-784

Artis v. District of Columbia | 11/01/17 | Docket #: 16-460

U. S. Bank Nat. Assn. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC | 10/31/17 | Docket #: 15-1509

Wilson v. Sellers | 10/30/17 | Docket #: 16-6855

Manuel Ayestas v. Davis | 10/30/17 | Docket #: 16-6795

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC. | 10/11/17 | Docket #: 16-499

National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense | 10/11/17 | Docket #: 16-299

Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Serv. of Chicago | 10/10/17 | Docket #: 16-658

Class v. United States | 10/04/17 | Docket #: 16-424

District of Columbia v. Wesby | 10/04/17 | Docket #: 15-1485