Every call, justice by justice

The Court considered whether campaign finance regulations violated the First Amendment, ruling that certain restrictions on coordinated expenditures were unconstitutional.

The Court ruled on the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act regarding public accommodations, affirming the lower court's decision.

The Court decided a civil rights case involving Trump and Barbara, but the specific question and ruling are not confidentially known.

The Supreme Court heard a case regarding a miscellaneous legal subject and issued a ruling.

The Supreme Court considered the extent of judicial power regarding presidential immunity, ruling that former presidents are not absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for official acts.

The Court ruled on whether the Republican National Committee's redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act, upholding the lower court's decision.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known at this time.

The Court ruled on a criminal procedure issue, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's holding are not available.

The Court decided a case about judicial power, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently known.

The Supreme Court addressed a civil rights issue, but the specific question presented and the Court's ruling are not yet available.

The Court decided a federalism issue regarding state law and federal preemption, but the specific holding is not yet public.

The Court decided a case about economic activity, but the specific question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently known at this time.

The Court ruled on whether Isabella County violated due process by seizing property without adequate notice, holding that the county's actions were unconstitutional.

The Court ruled on a case concerning economic activity, but the specific question presented and the Court's exact holding are not confidently known.

The Court ruled on the scope of civil rights protections, clarifying the application of anti-discrimination laws in employment.

The Court decided a case related to Judicial Power, but the specifics of the question presented and the ruling are not available.

The Court decided a case about criminal procedure, but the specific question presented and ruling are not yet known.

The Court decided a case concerning judicial power, but the specific question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently known.

The Court decided a case about criminal procedure, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court decided a case about judicial power, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court ruled on the interpretation of "actual damages" under Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, clarifying the scope of appellate remedies for unstayed asset sales.

The Court decided a case related to judicial power, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case regarding the scope of a federal statute, ruling on the interpretation of 'official act' in bribery.

The Court ruled on whether the term "personal privacy" in Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act applies to corporations, holding that corporations do not possess personal privacy.

The Court decided a case about economic activity, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court ruled on a case involving economic activity and securities regulation, but the specific question presented and the Court's exact holding are not confidently known.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specifics of the question presented and ruling are not available.

The Court decided a case about criminal procedure, specifically regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during a search.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not available.

The Court decided a case about criminal procedure, but the specific question presented and ruling are not known.

The Court decided a case related to economic activity, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court ruled that immigration judges are not entitled to collective bargaining rights under federal labor law, reversing the Ninth Circuit.

The Court ruled that the Helms-Burton Act's Title III private right of action does not apply to cruise lines whose ships docked at ports in Cuba that were confiscated by the Cuban government.

The Court ruled on whether a company could be held liable for withdrawal liability under ERISA when it ceased operations, clarifying the scope of employer responsibility.

The Court ruled on the application of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in the context of digital evidence, affirming the lower court's decision.

The Court decided a federalism issue, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not available.

The Court decided a case about economic activity, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court ruled on the scope of civil rights protections in Louisiana, affirming the lower court's decision regarding discrimination claims.

The Court decided a case about judicial power, but the specific question and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court ruled that the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, affirming the lower court's decision.

The Court considered whether federal courts can enjoin state court proceedings, ruling that the All Writs Act does not authorize injunctions against state court litigation.

The Court ruled on the application of the Fourth Amendment to searches of digital devices at the border, holding that such searches require reasonable suspicion.

The Court decided a case about judicial power, but the specifics of the question presented and ruling are not confident.

The Court ruled on the extent of free speech rights for government employees, affirming that certain speech is protected even when it relates to their official duties.

The Court ruled on the scope of copyright infringement liability for internet service providers, clarifying the conditions under which they can be held responsible for user-uploaded content.

The Court decided a case about criminal procedure, specifically regarding the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The Court ruled on the scope of civil rights protections for individuals with disabilities, clarifying the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act to public accommodations.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the City of Brandon, Mississippi's ordinance restricting public assembly violated the First Amendment, but the Court has not yet issued a ruling.

The Court decided a civil rights case regarding due process rights for immigrants, ruling against the petitioner's claim of procedural error.

The Court ruled that New Jersey Transit Corporation's policy of denying employment to individuals with certain criminal convictions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Court decided a case about judicial power, but the specific question and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court ruled on a criminal procedure issue regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained without a warrant, affirming the lower court's decision.

The Court decided a case related to judicial power, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court ruled that the U.S. Postal Service is not immune from state taxation on its real property, affirming the lower court's decision.

The Supreme Court decided a miscellaneous case regarding Learning Resources v. Trump, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court ruled on the constitutionality of a state law regulating auto parts sales, affirming the lower court's decision.

The Court decided a case about judicial power, but the specifics of the question presented and the ruling are not confident.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specifics of the question presented and ruling are not available.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specific question presented and ruling are not known at this time.

The Court ruled on a civil rights issue concerning election procedures, but the specific question and holding are not yet determined for the 2025 term.

The Court decided a case about criminal procedure, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not available.

The Court decided a federalism issue, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court decided a Criminal Procedure case, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not available.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known at this time.

The Supreme Court considered whether the federal government can regulate intrastate economic activity under the Commerce Clause, ruling that it can if there is a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

The Court decided a case related to economic activity, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court considered the First Amendment implications of a law, ruling on its constitutionality.

The Court considered whether the FCC's net neutrality rules exceeded its statutory authority, ruling that the FCC had overstepped its bounds.

The Court considered a First Amendment issue regarding speech, but the specific ruling is not yet clear.

The Court considered the scope of judicial power regarding presidential actions, ruling on a challenge to a presidential directive.

The Court considered whether a state court's interpretation of state law violated due process, but ultimately dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently available.

The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving undisturbed the Fourth Circuit's decision regarding South Carolina's Medicaid program.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the First Amendment protects a right to record police officers performing their duties in public, but the case was dismissed due to a settlement.

The Court considered a civil rights issue, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently available.

The Supreme Court heard a case regarding judicial power, specifically concerning the Environmental Protection Agency. The Court ruled on the scope of judicial review over agency actions.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently available.

The Court considered whether a federal court could certify a class action for antitrust claims, but the case was dismissed before a ruling.

The Court considered whether the FDA's denial of premarket tobacco product applications for e-cigarettes violated the First Amendment, ruling that the FDA's actions were permissible.

The Court considered whether the PLO could be sued in U.S. courts for terror-related injuries, ruling that due process prevented such suits.

The Court considered whether the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that it had jurisdiction to review EPA's order, but the case was dismissed as improvidently granted.

The Court decided a case about judicial power, specifically regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving the Tenth Circuit's judgment undisturbed.

The Court decided a case about criminal procedure, but the specific question presented and how the Court ruled are not confidently known.

The Court considered a civil rights issue but did not issue a substantive ruling, instead dismissing the case as improvidently granted.

The Supreme Court considered a civil rights issue, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently available.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court decided a case about judicial power, but the specific question and ruling are not confidently available.

The Court decided a federal taxation case, but the specific question presented and how the Court ruled are not confidently known.

The Court considered a civil rights issue but did not issue a substantive ruling, as the case was dismissed.

The Court considered whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial for an offense when a jury has previously acquitted the defendant of a different offense based on the same conduct, ruling that it does not.

The Court considered whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bars a lawsuit by Mexico against U.S. gun manufacturers, but the case was dismissed before a ruling.

The Supreme Court considered a civil rights issue, but the specific question presented and how the Court ruled are not confidently known.

The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving the lower court's judgment undisturbed.

The Court considered whether a foreign arbitration award could be enforced against an Indian government company, but the case was dismissed.

The Court considered whether the Second Circuit erred in holding that 28 U.S.C. 1782(a) does not authorize discovery for use in private commercial arbitrations, but the case was dismissed.

The Court considered whether the First Amendment exempts religious organizations from generally applicable labor laws, ruling that it does not.

The Court considered a dispute regarding economic activity, but the specific question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently ascertainable.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case concerning the establishment of a religious charter school, leaving lower court decisions undisturbed.

The Court considered a criminal procedure issue but did not issue a merits decision, instead dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

The Court considered a criminal procedure issue, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently available.

The Court considered a case related to economic activity, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently available.

The Court considered whether a church-affiliated hospital's pension plan was exempt from ERISA, ruling that it was not.

The Court considered a civil rights issue but no specific ruling or question presented is available, so the details of the case outcome are uncertain.

The Court decided a case about economic activity, but the specific question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently known.

The Court decided a case about economic activity, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently available.

The Supreme Court considered the FDA's regulation of tobacco products, specifically premium cigars, and ruled on the scope of the agency's authority.

The Court considered the scope of federal regulatory power over economic activity, ruling on the constitutionality of a specific federal statute.

The Supreme Court considered a challenge to a federal regulation defining 'frame or receiver' for firearms, but the Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently available.

The Court considered a criminal procedure issue, but I am not confident in the specifics of the question presented or the Court's ruling.

The Court decided a case about judicial power, but the specifics of the question presented and ruling are not confidently available.

The Court decided a case about economic activity, but the specifics of the question presented and ruling are not confidently available.

The Supreme Court was asked to consider a case regarding economic activity, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently available.

The Court considered whether a federal court could abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a case involving state law claims, but the case was dismissed before a ruling on the merits.

The Court decided a case about attorneys, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently known.

The Court ruled on whether Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol violated the Eighth Amendment, holding that the petitioners failed to establish a viable alternative method of execution.

The Court decided a case involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and claims related to property taken during the Holocaust.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently available.

The Court considered whether the False Claims Act's scienter element requires proof that a defendant knew its conduct violated an authoritative government interpretation, but the case was dismissed before a ruling.

The Court decided a case about criminal procedure, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not confidently available.

The Court considered whether a law banning TikTok violated the First Amendment, but the case was dismissed before a ruling.

The Court considered whether a state law prohibiting employers from requiring employees to attend meetings about unionization was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, but the case was dismissed.

The Court was asked to consider whether a federal court could exercise jurisdiction over a state-law claim for damages against a foreign sovereign, but the case was dismissed before a ruling.

The Court considered the scope of judicial power regarding securities class actions but did not issue a substantive ruling on the merits.

The Court considered whether 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D) allows for the review of a question of law or fact, but I am not confident of the specifics of the Court's ruling.

The Court decided a case about judicial power, specifically concerning the scope of federal court jurisdiction over certain disputes.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specific question presented and ruling are not confidently available.

The Court decided whether and to what extent a former President enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

The Court held that the NetChoice plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Florida law, vacating the Eleventh Circuit's injunction.

The Court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for challenging agency rules under the Administrative Procedure Act begins when the rule is applied to the plaintiff.

The Court considered whether to overrule Chevron deference, but the case was dismissed as improvidently granted, leaving Chevron deference intact.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Eighth Amendment prevents cities from punishing homeless individuals for sleeping outside when no shelter is available, but has not yet issued a ruling.

The Court decided a criminal procedure case, but the specifics of the question presented and the Court's ruling are not yet available.

The Court considered the legality of Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy plan, which included releases for the Sackler family, and ruled to allow the plan to proceed.

The Supreme Court considered a challenge to the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, but ultimately dismissed the case as moot.

The Court decided whether the SEC administrative law judges' statutory removal protections were constitutional, ruling that they were not.

The Court considered the scope of privacy rights in digital communications, ruling on the government's access to encrypted data.

The Court considered whether 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(B) requires the government to prove that a bribe of a state or local official was paid with a purpose to influence an organization that receives federal funds, but the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

The Supreme Court considered whether government officials coerced social-media companies to suppress speech, but the Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.

The Court ruled that 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits firearm possession for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders, does not violate the Second Amendment.

The Court held that a U.S. citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in their noncitizen spouse being admitted to the U.S., reversing the Ninth Circuit.

The Court considered a criminal procedure issue but did not issue a merits decision, dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

The Court considered whether a jury must find facts supporting a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines enhancement, but the case was dismissed before a ruling.

The Court addressed a dispute among Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado over water rights to the Pecos River, ruling on the equitable apportionment of the river's waters.

The Court decided whether Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires a district court to make an express finding that the expert's testimony was based on sufficient facts or data, and the Court ruled that it does not.

The Court considered whether a plaintiff could challenge a malicious prosecution claim when charges were dropped, but did not issue a ruling on the merits.

The Court considered whether the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states, but did not rule on the question.

The Court vacated and remanded to determine if the alleged retaliatory arrest of a city councilman for criticizing the mayor violated the First Amendment.

The Court held that the increase in U.S. Trustee fees, enacted in 2017, could not be applied to existing Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases filed before the effective date of the fee increase.

The Court ruled that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machineguns.

The Court ruled that a single-document notice to appear for a removal hearing is not required to establish jurisdiction, reversing the Ninth Circuit.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lacked standing to challenge the FDA's regulation of mifepristone, reversing the Fifth Circuit's decision.

The Court ruled that the First Amendment did not prohibit the government from refusing to register a trademark that uses a person's name without their consent.

The Court ruled that federal courts must apply the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions when considering National Labor Relations Board requests under NLRA Section 10(j).

The Court held that a debtor's right to appeal a bankruptcy court's order denying confirmation of a reorganization plan is not mooted by the debtor's post-judgment sale of its assets.

The Court considered whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy funding a stock redemption agreement should be included in the value of the decedent's shares for estate tax purposes, ruling that they should.

The Court ruled that the Indian Health Service must pay contract support costs to tribes that administer healthcare programs, even if those costs exceed the IHS's congressional appropriations.

The Court considered whether the National Bank Act preempted state law claims regarding mortgage escrow accounts, ruling that federal law did not preempt the state law.

The Court considered whether government officials coerced regulated entities to punish the NRA for its protected speech, but the case was settled and dismissed before a ruling.

The Court ruled that the Fifth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief by failing to afford the state court's decision the deference required by AEDPA.

The Court held that the South Carolina General Assembly's redistricting plan for congressional districts was not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit did not err in determining that the question of who decides arbitrability depends on the arbitration agreement's specific language.

The Court considered whether a federal defendant who pleads guilty preserves an appellate claim that the indictment fails to state an offense if the defendant did not raise the objection before pleading guilty. The Court ruled that such a claim is not preserved.

The Court ruled that federal courts must send a case to arbitration even if the court finds the arbitration agreement is unenforceable.

The Court considered whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's filing deadline for appealing Merit Systems Protection Board decisions is jurisdictional, ruling it is not.

The Court ruled that the CFPB's funding mechanism, drawing from the Federal Reserve, does not violate the Appropriations Clause.

The Court ruled that due process does not require a separate preliminary hearing for innocent owner claims in civil forfeiture cases.

The Court considered whether the “discovery rule” applies to copyright claims, but did not rule on the merits, instead vacating and remanding for lack of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court considered whether the Eighth Circuit's test for showing an adverse employment action in Title VII cases was correct, ruling that a plaintiff need only show some harm from a discriminatory job transfer.

The Court held that a federal prisoner seeking to challenge the calculation of their sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2241 must do so within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's one-year statute of limitations.

The Court ruled that a veteran who had received educational assistance under one GI Bill program could also receive assistance under a different GI Bill program, reversing the lower court's decision.

The Court considered whether property owners can seek just compensation under the Fifth Amendment for property taken without formal condemnation proceedings, but did not issue a ruling on the merits.

The Court held that a traffic impact fee imposed as a condition for a residential building permit was a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment, even if legislatively imposed.

The Court held that an omission alone is insufficient to state a claim under Exchange Act Rule 10b-5(b), which requires an untrue statement of material fact.

The Court considered whether a state law claim for unpaid wages under state law was preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act, but the case was dismissed.

The Court ruled that federal courts can review Board of Immigration Appeals decisions regarding equitable tolling of the 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen, reversing the lower court.

The Court considered whether a lawsuit seeking to remove an individual from the No-Fly List became moot once the government removed him, ruling it did.

The Court held that a defendant's prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions, if they did not result in imprisonment, cannot be used to enhance a subsequent sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

The Court considered whether public officials' social media activity constituted state action, but the case was dismissed as improvidently granted.

The Court ruled that a public official's social media activity is state action under Section 1983 only if they possess state authority and exercise it to fulfill a governmental responsibility.

The Court ruled that states cannot disqualify presidential candidates under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, reversing Colorado's decision to remove Trump from the ballot.

The Court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a state from retrying a defendant for an offense after an acquittal, even if the acquittal is inconsistent with a conviction on another charge.

The Court held that federal courts have admiralty jurisdiction over a marine insurance contract dispute, even if the dispute involves a non-maritime issue.

The Court considered the evidentiary standard for whistleblower retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, ruling that plaintiffs need not prove their employer acted with retaliatory intent.

The Court held that the federal government waived its sovereign immunity under the Privacy Act when a plaintiff seeks actual damages for the government's failure to maintain accurate records.

The Court dismissed as moot a case about Article III standing for ADA testers, declining to rule on whether such testers have standing to sue for informational injuries.

The Court ruled that a graphic designer has a First Amendment right to refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings, despite a state anti-discrimination law.

The Court ruled that the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan exceeded its authority under the HEROES Act, thereby striking down the program.

The Court considered whether the Department of Education had the statutory authority to establish a student loan forgiveness program, ruling that it did not.

The Court ruled that Harvard and UNC's race-conscious admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled that to deny a religious accommodation, an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.

The Court considered the extraterritorial reach of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, ruling that it does not apply to foreign infringements when the infringing conduct occurred abroad.

The Court ruled that the Pennsylvania courts had personal jurisdiction over Norfolk Southern because the company registered to do business there, thereby consenting to jurisdiction.

The Court ruled that the North Carolina Supreme Court did not err in striking down the congressional map drawn by the state legislature.

The Court ruled that to convict a defendant for making true threats, the state must prove the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of their statements, overturning the conviction of a man who sent harassing messages.

The Court ruled that the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the admission of a codefendant's redacted out-of-court statement.

The Court unanimously held that the federal ban on encouraging illegal immigration, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), was not unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.

The Court ruled that a district court must stay its proceedings when an appeal is taken from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.

The Court decided whether Texas and Louisiana had Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's immigration enforcement guidelines, ruling they did not.

The Court ruled that a defendant's prior conviction for a felony involving the use or carrying of a firearm is not a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 1868 Treaty with the Navajo Nation did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajo Nation.

The Court held that a federal prisoner could not bring a second or successive habeas petition to challenge his sentence based on a new interpretation of a statute.

The Court declined to hear a case regarding the enforceability of an oral contract for a share in a business venture, leaving lower court rulings undisturbed.

The Court held that 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) does not require a consecutive sentence for a defendant who is already subject to a mandatory consecutive sentence.

The Court decided whether the government can dismiss a False Claims Act qui tam action after initially declining to intervene, ruling that it can.

The Court considered whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity extends to private commercial activity, but the case was dismissed before a ruling.

The Court decided whether the federal 'felon-in-possession' statute requires the government to prove a defendant knew their firearm was a weapon, ruling it does not.

The Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act's provisions concerning the placement of Native American children in adoption and foster care, rejecting challenges to its constitutionality.

The Court ruled that Medicaid Act's anti-discrimination and patient-safety provisions allow private lawsuits to enforce those rights.

The Court affirmed the district court's finding that Alabama's 2021 congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The Court ruled that a parody dog toy was not exempt from trademark infringement claims as an expressive work, reversing the Ninth Circuit.

The Court held that 18 U.S.C. 1035(a)(1) requires that the false statement be material to the charged healthcare fraud, reversing the Fifth Circuit.

The Court considered whether purchasers of direct and registered shares have standing to sue under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, but did not rule on the merits.

The Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Act did not protect the union from state tort liability for intentionally destroying the employer's property during a strike.

The Court ruled that a defendant's contemporaneous subjective understanding of the meaning of a phrase was relevant to whether they knowingly made a false claim.

The Court unanimously ruled that Hennepin County violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause by retaining the surplus from a tax foreclosure sale.

The Court unanimously ruled that the Ninth Circuit erred by using the "significant nexus" test to determine if wetlands are "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act.

The Court held that a party does not forfeit an affirmative defense by failing to reassert it in response to a motion for summary judgment.

The Court decided a case about the economic activity, specifically regarding the powers of the FDIC.

The Court ruled that providing general support to a terrorist organization, without directly aiding a specific act of terrorism, was not sufficient to establish liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

The Court considered whether Amgen's antibody patents for lowering cholesterol met the enablement requirement, ruling that they did not enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the full scope of the claims.

The Court ruled that Andy Warhol's use of a photograph to create a series of silkscreen prints was not fair use, reversing the Second Circuit's decision.

The Court vacated and remanded on the question of whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, finding the issue was not properly before them.

The Court decided whether 26 U.S.C. 6320 and 6330 require the IRS to provide a non-custodial spouse with a CDP hearing when the IRS levies property to satisfy the other spouse's tax debt, ruling that it does not.

The Court considered whether the Federal Labor Relations Authority had jurisdiction over state National Guard civilian technicians, ruling it did not.

The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving undisturbed the First Circuit's judgment regarding the Financial Oversight and Management Board's transparency obligations.

The Court considered whether a private citizen can be convicted of honest-services wire fraud for defrauding the public, ruling that they cannot.

The Court considered whether the Second Circuit's 'right to control' theory of fraud could sustain a conviction under federal fraud statutes, ruling that it could not.

The Court considered whether the Fifth Circuit erred in reviewing an immigration agency's factual findings, ruling that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the petitioner's claims.

The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, ruling that the dormant Commerce Clause did not bar California from enforcing Proposition 12, which bans the sale of pork from pigs confined in a cruel manner.

The Court held that the federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a state prisoner's Section 1983 claim challenging the state's post-conviction DNA testing procedures.

The Court ruled that a bankruptcy court's order under 11 U.S.C. 363(m) is not jurisdictional, allowing an appeal to proceed despite the lack of a stay.

The Court considered whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions of foreign sovereigns, but did not reach a definitive ruling on the merits.

The Court dismissed New York's complaint against New Jersey regarding the Waterfront Commission Compact as improvidently granted, leaving the compact's future uncertain.

The Court ruled that district courts have jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the FTC's structure or existence, not the agency's administrative process.

The Court decided whether the Quiet Title Act's 12-year statute of limitations is a jurisdictional rule or a claim-processing rule, ruling it is a claim-processing rule.

The Court ruled that the exhaustion requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not apply to claims seeking only monetary damages.

The Court ruled that a nonwillful failure to file a Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR) is subject to a single penalty per form, not per account.

The Court held that unclaimed funds from MoneyGram's official checks and similar instruments are subject to the 1974 Federal Disposition Act, which assigns them to the state where the instrument was purchased.

The Court considered whether Arizona courts must apply federal law to review a capital defendant's claim of intellectual disability, but the case was dismissed.

The Supreme Court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act's exemption for highly compensated employees does not apply to employees paid on a daily basis, regardless of their total annual compensation.

The Court held that a debt for money or property obtained by fraud is nondischargeable in bankruptcy, even if the debtor did not personally commit the fraud.

The Supreme Court considered whether a grand jury subpoena for documents that contain both privileged and unprivileged information must be quashed or if the information must be produced, but the Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted.

The Court decided a case about the legal subject of civil rights.