The Supreme Court,
as it happens.

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.

To determine whether an omission of a claim in the bankruptcy context was inadvertent or mistaken for purposes of the judicial estoppel doctrine, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the omission; the Fifth Circuit erred in narrowing its inquiry in this case to whether the debtor had knowledge of the underlying facts or a potential motive to conceal the claim.

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.

Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act does not impliedly empower private parties to sue for rescission of contracts that allegedly violate the Act.

Abouammo v. United States

A defendant charged with knowingly falsifying a document with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation in violation of 18 U. S. C. §1519 must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred; the defendant cannot be tried in a different district where the investigation was located because no “conduct constituting the offense” happened there.

Clark v. Mississippi

FCC v. AT&T

Because forfeiture orders issued under 47 U. S. C. §503(b)(4) do not definitively resolve the parties’ legal obligations, and the FCC’s factual findings in its forfeiture proceedings are not conclusive, it does not violate the Seventh Amendment for the FCC to issue forfeiture orders without the involvement of a jury.

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.

Amarin has failed to state a claim for actively inducing infringement of its brand-name drug’s patented uses in violation of 35 U. S. C. §271(b), so its complaint cannot withstand Hikma’s motion to dismiss.

Sripetch v. SEC

A showing of pecuniary loss to investors is not required before the SEC may obtain a disgorgement award under 15 U. S. C. §78u(d)(5) or §78u(d)(7).

Allen v. Milligan

The applications for stay presented to JUSTICE THOMAS and by him referred to the Court are granted; at this preliminary stage, the State has shown that it is entitled to interim relief from the District Court’s injunction.

Whitton v. Dixon

The Court of Appeals erred in considering post-trial DNA evidence when assessing whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that jailhouse informant Ozio’s testimony was immaterial to the jury’s verdict, because evidence not presented to the jury could not have influenced the jury’s verdict and therefore sheds no light on whether Ozio’s testimony influenced that verdict.

Rutherford v. United States

When Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive—as with the change to 18 U. S. C. §924(c)—the resulting sentencing disparity cannot serve as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason that warrants a sentence reduction under §3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

Pitchford v. Cain

In Pitchford’s direct appeal of a capital murder sentence, the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied the clearly established precedents of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, to determine that Pitchford waived his opportunity to rebut the prosecutor’s asserted race-neutral reasons for the peremptory strikes of four black prospective jurors.

Fernandez v. United States

A prisoner who collaterally attacks the validity of his conviction must proceed through 28 U. S. C. §2255, not 18 U. S. C. §3582; the supposed invalidity of a conviction is not among the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that justify compassionate release.

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock

The Federal Arbitration Act’s exemption from compelled arbitration for workers “engaged in . . . interstate commerce,” 9 U. S. C. §1, can apply to a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey and who does not cross state lines or interact with vehicles that do.

Florida v. California

Margolin v. NAIJ

The Fourth Circuit’s decision to vacate and remand based on an issue the parties had not raised in the District Court violated the principle of party presentation, and its judgment is reversed.

Hamm v. Smith

Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension

The provisions of ERISA governing the calculation of withdrawal liability from an underfunded Multiemployer Pension Plan— i.e., the withdrawing employer’s share of the plan’s unfunded vested benefits—do not require that actuarial assumptions underlying the calculation be selected on or before the statutory measurement date. 29 U. S. C. §§1391, 1393.

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

In action filed by the Havana Docks Corporation pursuant to Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, 22 U. S. C. §6021 et seq., related to its property interest in the operation of docks at the Port of Havana, respondent cruise lines’ use of the docks is sufficient to establish that they used “property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government;” Havana Docks is not required to establish that the cruise lines “trafficked” in Havana Dock’s property interest.

Lairy v. United States

Guerrero v. Busby

Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Louisiana

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties

A federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under §3 of the Federal Arbitration Act has jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award on those claims as prescribed in §9 and §10 of the Act.

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC

A claim that one company negligently hired another to transport goods is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act because States retain authority to regulate safety “with respect to motor vehicles” under the Act. 49 U. S. C. §14501(c)(2)(A).

Allen v. Caster

Callais v. Louisiana

Louisiana v. Callais

Because the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U. S. C. §10301 et seq., did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport

In a 42 U. S. C. §1983 suit challenging a subpoena issued by the New Jersey Attorney General demanding documents and donor information, First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights sufficient to confer Article III standing.

Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel

Because 28 U. S. C. §1446(b)(1)’s text, structure, and context are inconsistent with equitable tolling, Enbridge’s removal of the case to federal court outside the statute’s 30-day deadline was untimely.

Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in finding Winston Hencely’s state-law tort claims preempted where the Federal Government neither ordered nor authorized Fluor Corporation’s challenged conduct.

District of Columbia v. R.W.

Because Officer Vanterpool clearly had reasonable suspicion to stop R. W., the judgment of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded.

Castro v. Guevara

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish

Chevron has plausibly alleged a close relationship between its challenged crude-oil production and the performance of its federal aviation gas refining duties and has therefore satisfied the “relating to” requirement of the federal officer removal statute, 28 U. S. C. §1442(a)(1).

Chiles v. Salazar

Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to petitioner’s talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.

Skinner v. Louisiana

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment

Internet service provider Cox Communications neither induced its users’ infringement of copyrighted works nor provided a service tailored to infringement, and accordingly Cox is not contributorily liable for the infringement of Sony’s copyrights.

Rico v. United States

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 does not authorize a rule automatically extending a defendant’s term of supervised release when the defendant fails to report to a probation officer.

Zorn v. Linton

Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a case where an officer using a routine wristlock on a protester after issuing a verbal warning, without more, was held to have violated the Constitution, Sergeant Jacob Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity; the Second Circuit’s contrary conclusion was erroneous.

Reed v. Goertz

Villarreal v. Alaniz

Olivier v. City of Brandon

Petitioner Gabriel Olivier’s suit seeking purely prospective relief—an injunction stopping officials from enforcing an ordinance in the future—can proceed, notwithstanding his prior conviction for violating that ordinance; Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477 (1994), does not hold otherwise.

Burnett v. United States

Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp.

The New Jersey Transit Corporation is not an arm of the State of New Jersey and thus is not entitled to share in New Jersey’s interstate sovereign immunity.

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi

The Immigration and Nationality Act requires application of the substantial-evidence standard to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ agency’s determination whether a given set of undisputed facts rises to the level of persecution under 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(42)(A).

Mirabelli v. Bonta

The application filed by parents and teachers to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s stay of the District Court’s injunction pending appeal is granted as to the parents under the four-factor test in Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594 U. S. 758, 763 (2021) (per curiam).

Malliotakis v. Williams

Johnson v. High Desert State Prison

Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal

Because the Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U. S. 18 (1940), provides federal contractors a potential merits defense rather than an immunity from suit, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection is not immediately appealable.

Villarreal v. Texas

A trial court’s qualified conferral order that prohibits only discussion of the defendant’s testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess permissibly balances the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the burden of offering unaltered trial testimony and does not violate the Constitution.

Trotter v. Florida

Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist

Because the District Court’s erroneous dismissal of Whole Foods Market did not cure the jurisdictional defect that existed when this case was removed to federal court, the Fifth Circuit correctly vacated the judgment in favor of Hain Celestial Group.