A case in which the Court will clarify the pleading standards to show knowledge or intent for Private Securities Litigation Reform Act claims that rely on internal company documents.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
A case in which the Court will decide whether, when a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, a motion to reopen filed the next business day is sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).
A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the phrase “entitled… to benefits” includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.
A case in which the Court held that employers seeking to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption must do so by a preponderance of the evidence.
A case in which the Court will decide whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1).
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1).
A case in which the Court held that revocation of an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. §1155 based on a sham-marriage determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the purview of §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain actions “in the discretion of” the agency.
A case in which the Court will decide whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
A capital case in which the Court held that the prosecution’s failure to correct false testimony violated the Due Process Clause and remanded the case for a new trial.
A capital case in which the Court will decide whether to allow Oklahoma to execute Petitioner Richard Glossip after numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct and other errors, where even the state no longer defends the capital sentence.
A capital case in which the Court will decide whether to allow Oklahoma to execute Petitioner Richard Glossip after numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct and other errors, where even the state no longer defends the capital sentence.
A case in which the Court held that a party who obtains a preliminary injunction is not a “prevailing party” for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has the authority to regulate so-called “ghost guns”—that is, firearms without serial numbers that can be assembled from parts.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a party who obtains a preliminary injunction is a “prevailing party” for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff whose state-court lawsuit was removed by the defendants to federal court can seek to have the case sent back to state court by amending the complaint to omit all references to federal law.
A case in which the Court held that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court if enforcing that requirement effectively immunizes officials from suit.
A case in which the Court held that a former U.S. President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.
A case in which the Court was asked to 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 held courts must use the traditional four-factor test 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 held that the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment does not prevent a city from enforcing a ban on public camping against homeless individuals.
A case in which the Court held that Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, and does not give district courts discretion to dismiss the suit when all claims are subject to arbitration.
A case in which the Court held that when a capital defendant claims that he was prejudiced at sentencing because counsel failed to present available mitigating evidence, a court must decide whether it is reasonably likely that the additional evidence would have avoided a death sentence, which the court does by evaluating the strength of all the evidence and comparing the weight of aggravating and mitigating factors.
A case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, does not include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.
A case in which the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) does not criminalize gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take.
