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 was asked to resolve a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.
A case in which the Court held the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) does not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.
A case in which the Court held that the Indian Health Service must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties.
A case in which the Court held that a corporation’s contractual obligation to redeem shares is not necessarily a liability that reduces a corporation’s value for purposes of the federal estate tax.
A case in which the Court held that an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” that may object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
A case in which the Court 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 permitted the National Rifle Association's lawsuit to proceed where it plausibly alleged that the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.
A case in which the Court clarified the test for whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state laws to national banks.
A case in which the Court held that a state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that conviction.
A case in which the Court held that, when parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, a court must decide whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation.
A case in which the Court held that South Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan does not constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
A case in which the Court held that the 60-day filing deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) is not jurisdictional.
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 upheld the funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as consistent with the Appropriations Clause.
A case in which the Court held that the Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred.
A case in which the Court held that in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing.
A case in which the Court held that, because the relevant rules a time-related directive, a district court can enter a criminal forfeiture order when the time limit specified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has already passed.
A case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions that cause some harm, not merely "significant" harm.
A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress directly under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action, but it concluded that it did not need to resolve that question to dispose of this case.
A case in which the Court held that a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service is entitled to receive all of the education benefits at once from programs associated with both periods of service.
A case in which the Court held that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K cannot support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.
A case in which the Court held that a worker need not be employed by a company in the transportation industry to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.
A case in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions.
A case in which the Court held that respondent’s claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are not moot because the government's declaration stating that he “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information” did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future.
A case in which the Court held that an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
A case in which the Court held that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.
A case in which the Court held that a defendant must satisfy individually each of the three conditions of the “safety valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1) to be eligible for sentencing relief.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social media account, which the official uses to communicate about job-related matters with the public.
A case in which the Court held that under federal admiralty law, choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions not applicable in this case.
