U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court will decide whether a Texas law that requires any website that publishes content one-third or more of which is “harmful to minors” to verify the age of each of its users before providing access should be subject to “rational basis” review or “strict scrutiny.”

A case in which the Court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

A case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, does not prohibit making a statement that is misleading but not false.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act’s enactment, then vacated and resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the Act’s enactment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee—who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed—loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to TikTok, violates the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act is limited to those earned by the named defendant in that case, exclusive of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.

A case in which the Court will consider the scope of property interests and fraud in government contracting, particularly when deception occurs without clear economic harm.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies in cases involving seized money and that the plaintiffs must establish a clear trace between expropriated property (or the proceeds from its sale) and property present in the United States in connection with commercial activity.

A case in which the Court held that the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products was not arbitrary and capricious.

A case in which the Court held that § 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code abrogates the Government’s sovereign immunity with respect to a §544(b) claim, but that waiver does not extend to state-law claims nested within that federal claim.

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 held that 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 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 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 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 held that the Department of Veterans Affairs’ determination that evidence regarding a disability claim is in “approximate balance” is a factual determination subject to clear-error review by the Veterans Court.

A case in which the Court held that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include “end-result” provisions in wastewater discharge permits.

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 held that under the civil provision of RICO, a plaintiff may seek treble damages for business or property loss even if the loss resulted from a personal injury.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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

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

A case in which the Court 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 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 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 the 60-day filing deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) is not jurisdictional.

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

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

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

A case in which the Court 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.