HomeScheduleJusticesCasesOpinionsAdvocatesStatsHow It Works

Cases

Loading case data.

scotus.wiki

The Judicial Branch

SCOTUS.wiki

Tracking the Supreme Court in plain language — justices, opinions, cases, and the Court’s calendar.

Congress.wikiWhiteHouse.wiki
HomeScheduleJusticesCasesOpinionsAdvocatesStatsHow It WorksPrivacy PolicyTerms of Service

Share your feedback

Help us improve by sharing your thoughts, reporting issues, or suggesting features.

Describe the issue or feature request. Your current page will automatically be included.

If you'd like a response, please enter your email.

This is not an official Supreme Court website.

Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LLC. All rights reserved.

scotus.wiki

The Judicial Branch

SCOTUS.wiki

Tracking the Supreme Court in plain language — justices, opinions, cases, and the Court’s calendar.

Color Theme

Congress.wikiWhiteHouse.wiki
HomeScheduleJusticesCasesOpinionsAdvocatesStatsHow It WorksPrivacy PolicyTerms of Service

Share your feedback

Help us improve by sharing your thoughts, reporting issues, or suggesting features.

Describe the issue or feature request. Your current page will automatically be included.

If you'd like a response, please enter your email.

This is not an official Supreme Court website.

Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LLC. All rights reserved.

Cases

The Court's docket, arguments, and outcomes.

Follow argued cases, merits questions, and how each one moves through the term. From cert grant to oral argument to decision.

Term tracker

416

decided

422

argued

Decided 416Argued 422Granted 439Total 456

All cases

456

Granted

439

Argued

422

Decided

416

Emergency

12

What's left

Term status

0

still scheduled

0

awaiting decision

0

sessions left

Next argument

None loaded

Last scheduled

None loaded

Coming up

Argument calendar

October Term 2025

No upcoming argument sessions are currently loaded.

All cases

Browse the docket

Showing the 48 most recently active

October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Birthright Citizenship: Children Born in U.S. to Parents Here Illegally Are Citizens

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara, et al.

Docket 25-365 · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

GrantedDec 5
ArguedApr 1
DecidedJun 30

In Trump v. Barbara (docket 25-365), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause grants U.S. citizenship at birth to children born in the United States whose parents are unlawfully or temporarily present. The First Circuit’s decision was affirmed on June 30, 2026.

22914View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Idaho's Law Barring Transgender Girls from Female School Sports Upheld by Supreme Court

Bradley Little, Governor of Idaho, et al. v. Lindsay Hecox, et al.

Docket 24-38 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

GrantedJul 3
ArguedJan 13
DecidedJun 30

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded, allowing Idaho’s law that prevents transgender girls from competing on girls’ K–12 and college teams to proceed. The decision narrows the claims available to challengers and signals deference to state athletic classifications tied to biological sex.

27813View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether schools can limit girls' and boys' sports teams to biological sex at birth under Title IX and Equal Protection

West Virginia, et al. v. B. P. J., By Her Next Friend and Mother, Heather Jackson

Docket 24-43 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

GrantedJul 3
ArguedJan 13
DecidedJun 30

The Court held that Title IX permits schools to operate separate male and female sports teams defined by biological sex at birth and that states’ rules doing so do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The judgment from the Fourth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded.

33713View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Law Curbing Party Spending with Candidates Struck Down as First Amendment Violation

National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al.

Docket 24-621 · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

GrantedJun 30
ArguedDec 9
DecidedJun 30

The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and held that 52 U.S.C. §30116(d), which limits how much a political party may spend on campaign communications when coordinated with its candidates, violates the First Amendment. The decision was handed down June 30, 2026, in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC.

15512View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Can Police Use 'Geofence' Warrants to Get Cellphone Location Data? Chatrie v. United States

Okello T. Chatrie v. United States

Docket 25-112 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

GrantedJan 16
ArguedApr 27
DecidedJun 29

The Court held that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they obtain a person’s historical cell‑phone location data from a provider under a geofence warrant because individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their phone location information. The case was vacated and sent back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

11911View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether Federal Election-Day Statutes Stop States From Counting Late-Received Absentee Ballots

Michael Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State v. Republican National Committee, et al.

Docket 24-1260 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

GrantedNov 10
ArguedMar 23
DecidedJun 29

The Court held that federal election-day statutes do not bar Mississippi from counting absentee ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received up to five days later. The Fifth Circuit judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

14512View case →
October Term 2025Emergency docketDecided

President Trump's Attempt to Remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook Blocked; Court Denies Emergency Stay

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States v. Lisa D. Cook, Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, et al.

Docket 25A312 · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Granted
ArguedJan 21
DecidedJun 29

The Court denied the government's emergency request to pause a district court order that blocked President Trump's attempted removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The denial leaves the preliminary injunction in place while the lower-court litigation continues.

5511View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether Congress can protect FTC commissioners from removal (challenge to FTC for-cause removal)

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

Docket 25-332 · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

GrantedSep 22
ArguedDec 8
DecidedJun 29

The Court held that the Federal Trade Commission’s statutory protection that limits the President’s ability to remove commissioners for cause violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. The decision reverses the D.C. Circuit and sends the case back for further proceedings..

18613View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Court limits review of DHS decisions on Temporary Protected Status and rejects race-based equal protection claim for Haiti TPS termination

Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Dahlia Doe, et al.

Docket 25-1083 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

GrantedMar 16
ArguedApr 29
DecidedJun 25

The Court held that a statute generally bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims about Temporary Protected Status (TPS) decisions, and concluded respondents’ race-based equal protection claim challenging the termination of Haiti’s TPS is unlikely to succeed. The case was reversed and remanded to lower courts.

14013View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Presidential Authority Over Immigration Enforcement at Interior Checkpoints Upheld in Trump v. Miot

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, et al.

Docket 25-1084 · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

GrantedMar 16
ArguedApr 29
DecidedJun 25

The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and remanded in a case challenging federal immigration stops inside the U.S. The Court's decision preserves broad executive authority to operate interior checkpoints and to detain and question noncitizens under certain circumstances.

293View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

FIFRA Preempts State-Law Cancer-Warning Suits Over Roundup (Monsanto v. Durnell)

Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell

Docket 24-1068 · Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District

GrantedJan 16
ArguedApr 27
DecidedJun 25

The Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim that would force Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup labels. The decision reverses a Missouri court and sends the case back for further proceedings.

13813View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether asylum applicants stopped on Mexican soil have the right to apply at the U.S. border

Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Al Otro Lado, a California Corporation, et al.

Docket 25-5 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

GrantedNov 17
ArguedMar 24
DecidedJun 25

The Court held that under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) an alien “arrives in the United States” only when they cross the border into U.S. territory. People stopped on the Mexican side of the border do not qualify as having “arrived” for §§1158 and 1225, so they cannot demand inspection or asylum under those provisions while remaining in Mexico. The Ninth Circuit judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

6514View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Hawaii Ban on Carrying Handguns on Private Property Open to the Public Struck Down

Jason Wolford, et al. v. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii

Docket 24-1046 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

GrantedOct 3
ArguedJan 20
DecidedJun 25

The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that Hawaii’s rule barring licensed concealed-carry handgun holders from carrying on private property open to the public unless the owner expressly permits it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with that holding.

14014View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether the Alien Tort Statute Allows New Aiding-and-Abetting Lawsuits Against Corporations

Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. v. Doe I, et al.

Docket 24-856 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

GrantedJan 9
ArguedApr 28
DecidedJun 23

The Court held that courts may not create new private causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) to reach aiding-and-abetting liability, and that neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) imposes aiding-and-abetting liability. The Ninth Circuit judgment allowing such claims against Cisco was reversed and the case remanded.

12413View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether Border Officials Must Meet a High Evidence Standard Before Treating LPRs as 'Applicants for Admission'

Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau

Docket 25-429 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

GrantedJan 9
ArguedApr 22
DecidedJun 23

The Court held the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require border officers to have clear-and-convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that person as an "applicant for admission." The case was vacated and remanded to the lower court.

2911View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

County kept surplus from tax-sale home — is that an unconstitutional taking?

Michael Pung, Personal Representative of the Estate of Timothy Scott Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan

Docket 25-95 · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

GrantedOct 3
ArguedFeb 25
DecidedJun 23

The Court ruled that when a county sells a home at a properly conducted tax auction to collect unpaid taxes, the auction price is the baseline for “just compensation” under the Fifth Amendment. The decision vacated and remanded the lower-court judgment, holding the county did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause in the way challenged.

11011View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Helms-Burton Suit Against Cuban State Firms: Exxon Mobil v. Corporación Cimex — Immunity and Trafficking Claims

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (Cuba), et al.

Docket 24-699 · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

GrantedOct 3
ArguedFeb 23
DecidedJun 23

The Court held that the Helms‑Burton Act validly removes foreign sovereign immunity for lawsuits by U.S. nationals against Cuban agencies and instrumentalities for trafficking in property confiscated from Americans in 1960, and sent the case back for further proceedings. The decision reverses the D.C. Circuit and remands for more proceedings consistent with the opinion.

6012View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether State Employees Can Face Personal-Capacity Suits Under RLUIPA’s Spending-Clause Enforcement

Damon Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, et al.

Docket 23-1197 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

GrantedJun 23
ArguedNov 10
DecidedJun 23

The Court affirmed that state employees cannot be sued in their personal capacities under RLUIPA—a Spending Clause statute—unless they voluntarily and knowingly consented to be treated as a private party and accept federal conditions. The ruling limits private damages suits against individual state officials under RLUIPA.

12412View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When State Court Rulings Block Federal Suits: Rooker-Feldman Applied to Ongoing State Review

T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, et al.

Docket 25-197 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

GrantedDec 5
ArguedApr 20
DecidedJun 18

The Court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents federal district courts from hearing cases by state-court losers who challenge injuries caused by state-court judgments, even when the state-court decision is still subject to further review in the state system. The judgment of the Fourth Circuit was affirmed.

4213View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When an Appeal Waiver Is Unenforceable: Hunter v. United States and Miscarriage of Justice

Munson P. Hunter, III v. United States

Docket 24-1063 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

GrantedOct 10
ArguedMar 3
DecidedJun 18

The Court decided that a general appeal waiver in a plea agreement can be unenforceable if enforcing it would produce a miscarriage of justice — that is, leave a clear, egregious error uncorrected. The case was vacated and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

4911View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Gun Ban for Unlawful Drug Users Upheld in Case About Home Possession

United States v. Ali Danial Hemani

Docket 24-1234 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

GrantedOct 20
ArguedMar 2
DecidedJun 18

The Court affirmed the conviction of Ali Danial Hemani under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) for possessing a firearm while an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The majority concluded the federal ban is consistent with the Second Amendment as applied to Hemani’s home possession.

9214View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether venue lies where obstruction's effects may be felt: Abouammo v. United States

Ahmad Abouammo v. United States

Docket 25-5146 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

GrantedDec 5
ArguedMar 30
DecidedJun 11

The Court unanimously held that a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. §1519 for knowingly falsifying a document with intent to obstruct a federal investigation must be tried in the district where the falsification took place. The government may not establish venue merely by pointing to places where the statute's intended effects could occur.

3911View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Is a Bankruptcy Omission 'Deliberate'? Judicial Estoppel and Missing Claims in Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction

Thomas Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Incorporated

Docket 25-6 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

GrantedOct 20
ArguedMar 24
DecidedJun 11

The Court unanimously vacated the Fifth Circuit and remanded, holding that courts should decide whether an omitted claim in bankruptcy was deliberate by looking at the totality of the circumstances. The Fifth Circuit had applied an incorrect, narrower test.

4111View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether private parties can sue for rescission under Investment Company Act §47(b)

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

Docket 24-345 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

GrantedJun 30
ArguedDec 10
DecidedJun 11

The Court decided that Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act does not imply a private right to sue for rescission of contracts that allegedly violate the Act. The Second Circuit judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

6913View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Can a Branded Drug Maker Sue a Generic for Inducing Infringement of a Patented Use?

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

Docket 24-889 · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

GrantedJan 16
ArguedApr 29
DecidedJun 4

The Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin’s complaint did not plausibly allege that Hikma induced infringement of Amarin’s patented uses. Because Hikma’s label excluded the patented use, Amarin’s allegations about calling the product “generic” and citing public sales data were insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. §271(b).

9611View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When the FCC Can Fine Telecoms: Seventh Amendment Limits on Administrative Forfeiture Orders

Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. AT&T, Inc.

Docket 25-406 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

GrantedJan 9
ArguedApr 21
DecidedJun 4

The Court held that the FCC’s monetary forfeiture process does not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial because those orders do not finally resolve private legal obligations and the FCC’s factual findings are not conclusive. The decision reverses the Fifth Circuit and sends the case back for further proceedings.

8512View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

FCC Authority to Fine Carriers for Failing to Protect Customer Data Upheld in Verizon Appeal

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.

Docket 25-567 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

GrantedJan 9
ArguedApr 21
DecidedJun 4

The Supreme Court affirmed that the Federal Communications Commission can levy monetary forfeiture penalties against telecommunications carriers for failing to take reasonable measures to protect certain customer proprietary network information under the Communications Act. The decision reverses the Second Circuit and restores the FCC’s enforcement authority.

162View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether SEC must show investor losses before getting disgorgement under the securities laws

Ongkaruck Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Docket 25-466 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

GrantedJan 9
ArguedApr 20
DecidedJun 4

The Court unanimously held the Securities and Exchange Commission does not need to prove investors suffered monetary losses before obtaining disgorgement in its civil enforcement actions under 15 U.S.C. §78u(d)(5) or §78u(d)(7). The Ninth Circuit’s decision in favor of the SEC was affirmed.

6312View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Prosecutor's Race-Based Jury Strikes Reversed in Mississippi Death-Penalty Case

Terry Pitchford v. Burl Cain, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections, et al.

Docket 24-7351 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

GrantedDec 15
ArguedMar 31
DecidedMay 28

The Court reversed and remanded Terry Pitchford’s death-penalty case, finding the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied Batson when it held Pitchford waived his right to rebut a prosecutor’s race-based use of peremptory strikes against Black prospective jurors. The decision enforces clearly established protections against racial discrimination in jury selection.

6712View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether local delivery drivers for interstate shipments are exempt from the FAA’s arbitration requirement

Flowers Foods, Inc., et al. v. Angelo Brock

Docket 24-935 · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

GrantedOct 20
ArguedMar 25
DecidedMay 28

The Court unanimously held that the Federal Arbitration Act’s §1 exemption can cover workers who handle goods that move in interstate commerce even if those workers only make local, intrastate deliveries and never cross state lines. The decision affirms the Tenth Circuit and revers the district court’s dismissal of the worker’s claims.

8811View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether sentencing disparities from nonretroactive law changes qualify for compassionate release under §3582(c)(1)(A)

Daniel Rutherford v. United States

Docket 24-820 · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

GrantedJun 6
ArguedNov 12
DecidedMay 28

The Court held that a sentencing disparity caused by Congress’s decision not to make a later sentencing change retroactive is not an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Third Circuit’s decision in favor of the government was affirmed.

8714View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Can Federal Judges Reduce Sentences for “Extraordinary and Compelling” Reasons?

Johnnie Markel Carter v. United States

Docket 24-860 · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

GrantedJun 6
ArguedNov 12
DecidedMay 28

The Court held that district courts may not expand the list of "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for reducing federal sentences beyond what Congress gave the Sentencing Commission authority to prescribe. The Third Circuit’s decision in favor of a broader judicial power was reversed and the judgment affirmed.

254View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Can Prisoners Seek Early Release for a Flawed Conviction? Fernandez v. United States

Joe Fernandez v. United States

Docket 24-556 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

GrantedMay 27
ArguedNov 12
DecidedMay 28

The Court held that prisoners who want to challenge the validity of their conviction must use the statutory postconviction remedy (28 U.S.C. §2255), not the compassionate‑release statute (18 U.S.C. §3582). An alleged invalid conviction is not an "extraordinary and compelling" reason to shorten a sentence under §3582. The Second Circuit’s decision affirming dismissal was upheld.

4113View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether Title III of the LIBERTAD Act allows suits against companies that used property confiscated by the Cuban government

Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al.

Docket 24-983 · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

GrantedOct 3
ArguedFeb 23
DecidedMay 21

The Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit judgment and remanded a Title III suit brought by Havana Docks alleging that cruise lines trafficked in property confiscated by Cuba. The justices delivered an opinion clarifying how Title III applies to private defendants and the required connection between defendants' conduct and confiscated property.

5211View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Employers Leave Multiemployer Pension Plans: How Withdrawal Liability Is Calculated Under ERISA

M & K Employee Solutions, LLC, et al. v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund

Docket 23-1209 · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

GrantedJun 30
ArguedJan 20
DecidedMay 21

The Court unanimously held that ERISA does not require pension funds to use actuarial assumptions that reflect the withdrawing employer’s particular circumstances when calculating withdrawal liability for underfunded multiemployer plans. The decision affirms the D.C. Circuit and lets plans rely on standard actuarial projections.

6411View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether Alabama can require proof of IQ ≤70 by a preponderance in death‑penalty neurodevelopmental claims

John Q. Hamm, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections v. Joseph Clifton Smith

Docket 24-872 · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

GrantedJun 6
ArguedNov 4
DecidedMay 21

The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving in place the lower‑court posture and avoiding a national decision on whether a State may demand a showing of IQ of 70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence to prove intellectual disability under Atkins. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson concurred; Justice Thomas dissented.

5911View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Federal Courts Stay a Case for Arbitration, Can They Later Confirm or Vacate the Award?

Adrian Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, et al.

Docket 25-83 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

GrantedDec 5
ArguedMar 30
DecidedMay 14

The Court unanimously held that when a federal court stays a case under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), that same court has jurisdiction to hear later Section 9 or 10 applications to confirm or vacate an arbitration award arising from the stayed claims. The decision answers a jurisdictional question left open after Badgerow v. Walters (2022).

2811View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When State Safety Claims Against Freight Companies Survive Federal Preemption

Shawn Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al.

Docket 24-1238 · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

GrantedOct 3
ArguedMar 4
DecidedMay 14

The Court unanimously held that a state-law negligent-hiring claim tied to a truck crash is not barred by the federal statute that generally preempts state laws "related to a price, route, or service" of motor carriers. The decision reversed the Seventh Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.

9212View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

State subpoena for pregnancy-center donor lists violates First Amendment associational rights, Court rules

First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey

Docket 24-781 · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

GrantedJun 16
ArguedDec 2
DecidedApr 29

The Court held that a New Jersey Attorney General subpoena seeking most donor names from a faith-based pregnancy center caused an immediate injury to the center’s First Amendment associational rights and supported a federal §1983 suit. The Court reversed the Third Circuit and remanded for further proceedings.

17711View case →
October Term 2025MiscellaneousDecided

Whether Louisiana Violated Voting Rights Act by Using Race to Draw S.B. 8 District Map

Louisiana v. Phillip Callais, et al.

Docket 24-109 · United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

Granted
ArguedMar 24
DecidedApr 29

The Court decided that Louisiana unconstitutionally used race as the predominant factor when enacting S.B. 8 and that the map failed strict scrutiny. The Court found the Voting Rights Act did not require creating an additional majority‑minority district.

27222View case →
October Term 2025MiscellaneousDecided

Whether Louisiana’s CD6 Was a Racially Driven District or a Lawful Political Map

Press Robinson, et al. v. Phillip Callais, et al.

Docket 24-110 · United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

Granted
ArguedMar 24
DecidedApr 29

The Court decided whether Louisiana’s state legislature drew Congressional District 6 with race as the dominant factor, rather than politics, and whether the lower court properly judged the legislature’s intent. The case was argued twice and the Court issued a decision on April 29, 2026.

36View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether federal courts can excuse the 30‑day removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) — Enbridge v. Nessel

Enbridge Energy, LP, et al. v. Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, on Behalf of the People of the State of Michigan

Docket 24-783 · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

GrantedJun 30
ArguedFeb 24
DecidedApr 22

The Court unanimously held that the 30‑day statutory deadline for removing a case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) cannot be excused by equitable tolling. Enbridge’s late removal was untimely and the Sixth Circuit’s ruling for Michigan was affirmed.

6511View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Contractor Liability for Afghan Base Suicide Bombing: Hencely v. Fluor Corporation

Winston Tyler Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, et al.

Docket 24-924 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

GrantedJun 2
ArguedNov 3
DecidedApr 22

The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit and remanded, holding federal preemption did not bar a state-law negligence and wrongful-death suit where the federal government did not order or authorize the contractor’s challenged security decisions. The case returns to the lower courts for further proceedings.

6211View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Can Federal Contractors Remove State Suits? Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish Explained

Chevron USA Incorporated, et al. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, et al.

Docket 24-813 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

GrantedJun 16
ArguedJan 12
DecidedApr 17

The Court vacated the lower-court judgment and remanded, holding that Chevron plausibly alleged a close relationship between its crude-oil production and performance of a federal aviation-gas refining contract, satisfying the federal-officer removal statute's “relating to” requirement. The decision clarifies when federal-contractor removal is available after the 2011 amendment to the statute.

9511View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Colorado Conversion-Therapy Ban Violates Free Speech When Applied to Talk Therapy for Religious Counselor

Kaley Chiles v. Patty Salazar, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, et al.

Docket 24-539 · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

GrantedMar 10
ArguedOct 7
DecidedMar 31

The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit, holding that Colorado’s law banning so-called “conversion therapy,” as applied to a licensed counselor’s talk therapy grounded in religious beliefs, regulates speech based on viewpoint and requires strict First Amendment scrutiny. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with that standard.

32613View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Is an ISP Liable for Users' Copyright Infringement? Cox v. Sony Clarifies Limits

Cox Communications, Inc., et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al.

Docket 24-171 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

GrantedJun 30
ArguedDec 1
DecidedMar 25

The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit, holding that Cox Communications was not contributorily liable for subscribers’ copyright infringement because it neither induced infringement nor offered a service tailored to infringement. The decision narrows when internet service providers can be held responsible for users’ illegal sharing of copyrighted material.

13712View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether supervised-release terms pause when a person is a fugitive: Rico v. United States

Isabel Rico v. United States

Docket 24-1056 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

GrantedJun 30
ArguedNov 3
DecidedMar 25

The Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not allow an automatic extension (tolling) of supervised release when a person fails to report or becomes a fugitive. The Ninth Circuit’s judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

3412View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether Heck Bars Prospective Civil-Rights Suits After a Prior Conviction

Gabriel Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi

Docket 24-993 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

GrantedJul 3
ArguedDec 3
DecidedMar 20

The Court unanimously held that Heck v. Humphrey does not bar civil-rights suits that seek only prospective relief (like injunctions) even if the plaintiff was previously punished under the law being challenged. Gabriel Olivier may proceed with an injunction challenge to a Brandon, Mississippi ordinance despite a prior conviction under that law.

12211View case →
HomeScheduleJusticesCasesOpinionsAdvocatesStatsHow It Works