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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 was asked to consider a challenge to the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 was asked to decide whether the Biden administration’s revised immigration policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
