The Supreme Court,
as it happens.

National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown

Because the Fourth Circuit likely lacked jurisdiction to review the Federal Communications Commission’s lowest-unit-charge requirements while the candidates’ application for review remained pending before the Commission and the party committees would otherwise suffer irreparable First Amendment harm, the party committees’ application for a stay is granted.

National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States

Because the government has established that it is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the East Wing project in federal court, that it would likely suffer irreparable harm without a stay, and that the balance of equities tips in its favor, the injunction entered by the District Court is stayed pending the disposition of the government’s forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.

Trump v. California

The Government’s application to stay the District Court’s injunction in 26A124—which forbids the Government to implement §§2 and 3 of Executive Order No. 14399—is granted; the application for a stay in 26A139 is denied as moot.

Jones v. United States

Trump v. Barbara

Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’n

The Federal Election Campaign Act’s restrictions on a political party’s spending on campaign activities in coordination with candidates, 52 U. S. C. §30116(d), violates the First Amendment.

West Virginia v. B. P. J.

Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex; West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by maintaining female sports teams for biological females.

Doe v. Hochul

Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc.

Smith v. Kind

Trump v. Slaughter

The Federal Trade Commission’s for-cause removal provision, 15 U. S. C. §41, is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Trump v. Cook

The Government’s application to stay the District Court’s order preliminarily enjoining the purported firing of Federal Reserve System Governor Lisa Cook pending the conclusion of litigation over her attempted removal is denied.

Watson v. Republican National Committee

The federal election-day statutes—3 U. S. C. §1, 2 U. S. C. §§ 1, 7—do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.

Chatrie v. United States

Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Okello Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.

Wolford v. Lopez

Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Monsanto v. Durnell

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U. S. C. §136v(b), expressly preempts Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to its Roundup products’ label.

Mullin v. Doe

Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims related to Temporary Protected Status (TPS); Miot respondents’ equal protection claim—that Haiti’s TPS designation was terminated because of race—is unlikely to succeed because a race-neutral explanation for the Government’s action exists: the current administration opposes the TPS program as it has been implemented in the past and has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal.

Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien “arrives in the United States” for purposes of 8 U. S. C. §§1158(a)(1) and 1225(a) only when the alien crosses the border into the United States; the INA neither entitles an alien standing at the border in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him.

Pung v. Isabella County

The proper baseline for measuring “just compensation” following a fairly conducted tax sale is the auction sale price, not the property’s hypothetical fair market value; Isabella County did not violate the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause by failing to compensate the taxpayer for his property’s fair market value.

Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety

State employees may not be held liable in their personal capacities under a Spending Clause statute such as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 unless those individuals have voluntarily and knowingly consented to answer private suits under the statute; the individual defendants in this case did not do so here, so Landor’s case cannot proceed against them.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba)

The Helms-Burton Act, formally known as the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, §301, 110 Stat. 815, 22 U. S. C. §6021 et seq., abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities; plaintiffs who sue Cuban agencies or instrumentalities under the Act need not also satisfy one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.

Blanche v. Lau

The Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe

Courts may not create new rights of action to remedy violations of international law under the Alien Tort Statute; neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 imposes liability for aiding-and-abetting offenses.

Saldaño v. Texas

Grayson v. United States

United States v. Carter

McCarthy v. Hernandez

The Second Circuit exceeded its authority in holding that Hernandez is entitled to habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1); no clearly established federal law required the trial court to instruct the jury about the rule that Justice Kennedy adopted in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U. S. 600, and the Second Circuit erred in holding otherwise.

Hunter v. United States

An agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice—meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.

T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and seeking district court review and rejection of those judgments, regardless of whether the state-court judgment remains subject to further review in state appellate proceedings.

United States v. Hemani

Prosecution of Ali Hemani under 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3)—for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance—is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

Alabama v. Powell

E.D. v. Noblesville School District

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.