Granted
422
Cases
This is not an official Supreme Court website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LLC. All rights reserved.
This is not an official Supreme Court website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LLC. All rights reserved.
Cases
Follow argued cases, merits questions, and how each one moves through the term. From cert grant to oral argument to decision.
Term tracker
378
decided
422
argued
All cases
439
Granted
422
Argued
422
Decided
378
Emergency
12
What's left
5
still scheduled
38
awaiting decision
5
sessions left
Next argument
May 14, 2026
Last scheduled
May 28, 2026
Session
Conference/Non-argument Day
May 14, 2026
1 argument remaining
Session
Order List Issuance Day
May 18, 2026
1 argument remaining
Session
Conference/Non-argument Day
All cases
48 cases loaded
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
The Court unanimously reversed the lower court, holding that a New Jersey investigatory subpoena demanding most donor names from a faith-based pregnancy center caused a present injury to the center’s First Amendment associational rights and allowed the center to sue under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Louisiana v. Phillip Callais, et al.
Docket 24-109 · United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
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.
Press Robinson, et al. v. Phillip Callais, et al.
Docket 24-110 · United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
The Court decided whether Louisiana’s legislature drew Congressional District 6 (CD6) based primarily on race rather than politics, reversing the district court’s finding that race predominated. The decision resolves whether courts should presume legislative good faith and how to separate racial from political motives in redistricting.
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
The Court unanimously held that federal courts lack authority to apply equitable tolling to the 30‑day removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1). Enbridge’s late removal was therefore untimely and the lower court’s decision to deny the timeliness defense was affirmed.
Winston Tyler Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, et al.
Docket 24-924 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
The Court ruled that former Army Specialist Winston Hencely can pursue state-law tort claims against Fluor Corporation for injuries from a suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield because the federal government did not order or authorize the contractor’s challenged conduct. The Fourth Circuit’s dismissal on federal preemption grounds was vacated and the case remanded.
Chevron USA Incorporated, et al. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, et al.
Docket 24-813 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Court held that Chevron plausibly showed a close relationship between its challenged crude-oil production and its federal contract to refine aviation gasoline, satisfying the statutory “relating to” requirement for removal under the federal-officer removal statute. The judgment below was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.
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
The Court held that Colorado’s law banning “conversion therapy” as applied to a Christian counselor’s purely talk-based therapy regulates speech based on viewpoint, requiring heightened First Amendment review. The decision reverses the lower courts and remands the case for further proceedings under that standard.
Cox Communications, Inc., et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al.
Docket 24-171 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and held that Cox Communications was not contributorily liable for subscribers’ copyright infringement. The decision says an internet service provider (ISP) must do more than know about infringing use and fail to disconnect users — there must be evidence it induced or intentionally fostered infringement.
Isabel Rico v. United States
Docket 24-1056 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The Court held the Sentencing Reform Act does not allow an automatic extension (fugitive-tolling) of supervised release when a person fails to report to probation. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded.
Gabriel Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi
Docket 24-993 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Court unanimously held that Heck v. Humphrey does not bar a §1983 suit seeking only prospective relief (an injunction) against enforcement of a law, even though the plaintiff had been punished under that law in the past. The case was reversed and remanded to allow the injunction claim to proceed.
Cedric Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation
Docket 24-1021 · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District
The Court held that the New Jersey Transit Corporation is not an "arm of the State" and therefore cannot claim interstate sovereign immunity. The unanimous opinion by Justice Sotomayor reversed the Pennsylvania high court and remanded the case.
New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. v. Jeffrey Colt, et al.
Docket 24-1113 · Court of Appeals of New York
The Court unanimously held that New Jersey Transit—an entity created by New Jersey that functions as an "arm of the State"—is entitled to sovereign immunity from a private suit filed in New York. The New York Court of Appeals' judgment allowing the suit was affirmed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, et al. v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General
Docket 24-777 · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
The Court unanimously held that courts reviewing the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) determination about whether undisputed facts constitute persecution must apply the substantial‑evidence standard. The First Circuit’s judgment upholding the BIA was affirmed.
The GEO Group, Inc. v. Alejandro Menocal, et al.
Docket 24-758 · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
The Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit, holding that a pretrial order denying a Yearsley defense—where federal-contractor status provides a merits defense but not immunity—is not an immediately appealable collateral order under 28 U.S.C. §1291. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
David Asa Villarreal v. Texas
Docket 24-557 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
The Supreme Court affirmed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, holding that a trial court may impose a narrowly tailored order forbidding the defendant and counsel from discussing the defendant’s own testimony during an overnight recess while the defendant is midtestimony. The Court found such an order balanced the Sixth Amendment right to counsel against trial integrity and the practical burdens of giving testimony in stages.
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. v. Sarah Palmquist, Individually and as Next Friend of E.P., a Minor, et al.
Docket 24-724 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Court held that a federal judgment entered after removal must be vacated when the district court mistakenly dismissed a non‑diverse defendant whose presence destroyed complete diversity at the time of removal. The Fifth Circuit’s vacatur of the judgment for Hain Celestial Group was affirmed and the case remanded.
United States Postal Service, et al. v. Lebene Konan
Docket 24-351 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
In United States Postal Service v. Konan (24-351), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal exception bars suits for intentional nondelivery of mail. The Court vacated and remanded the Fifth Circuit judgment, finding such claims fall within the FTCA’s exclusion for postal 'miscarriage' or 'loss.'
Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al.
Docket 24-1287 · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
In Learning Resources v. Trump (24-1287), the Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Court vacated and remanded one judgment for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed another related judgment.
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al.
Docket 25-250 · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
In Donald J. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., the Supreme Court largely upheld the Executive Branch's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs tied to proclamations and national-emergency-related executive orders. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision in part, vacated a separate judgment and remanded for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Jeanne Ann Burton, Chapter 7 Trustee for Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC
Docket 24-808 · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton (No. 24-808), the Supreme Court held that Rule 60(c)(1)’s ‘‘reasonable time’’ requirement applies to motions under Rule 60(b)(4) that a judgment is void. The Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit.
Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. v. United States
Docket 24-482 · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Holsey Ellingburg Jr. v. United States (No. 24-482), the Supreme Court held that restitution ordered under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) is a form of criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and remanded the case. The decision was unanimous with a concurring opinion.
Harold R. Berk v. Wilson C. Choy, et al.
Docket 24-440 · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
The Court held that Delaware’s statute requiring an affidavit of merit in certain medical-malpractice suits conflicts with a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and therefore does not apply in federal court. The Third Circuit’s judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
William Trevor Case v. Montana
Docket 24-624 · Supreme Court of Montana
In William Trevor Case v. Montana (24-624), the Supreme Court unanimously held that under the Fourth Amendment police may make a warrantless home entry under the emergency-aid exception only when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside needs immediate help. The Court applied the Brigham City v. Stuart standard and affirmed the Montana Supreme Court.
Michael J. Bost, et al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al.
Docket 24-568 · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that federal statutes setting a uniform Election Day can preempt state laws that allow ballots to be received or counted after that day. The Court found Congressman Bost had standing to challenge Illinois rules and sent the case back to lower courts for further proceedings.
Dwayne Barrett v. United States
Docket 24-5774 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The Supreme Court held that Congress did not clearly authorize separate convictions and sentences under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j) for a single criminal act, so double punishment for the same act is not allowed. The case was reversed in part and remanded to the lower court.
Michael Bowe v. United States
Docket 24-5438 · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The Supreme Court held that 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(E) does not prevent the Court from reviewing a federal prisoner’s request to file a second or successive §2255 motion, and that §2244(b)(1)’s dismissal rule does not apply to second-or-successive motions brought under the statute’s gatekeeping provision, §2255(h). The case was vacated and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al.
Docket 24A884 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
In a decision issued June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government's emergency applications for partial stays, finding that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts' equitable authority. The ruling narrows when a single court can block federal action nationwide.
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Washington, et al.
Docket 24A885 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The Supreme Court granted applications for partial stays in an emergency case between President Donald J. Trump and Washington and other state and local officials. The order, issued June 27, 2025, temporarily pauses parts of a lower-court ruling while the Court considers further review.
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. New Jersey, et al.
Docket 24A886 · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
The Supreme Court granted partial stays in an emergency dispute between President Donald J. Trump and New Jersey officials. The Court's decision, issued June 27, 2025, temporarily limits certain state actions while the broader legal fight continues.
Tamer Mahmoud, et al. v. Thomas W. Taylor, et al.
Docket 24-297 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and held that parents challenging Montgomery County’s requirement that elementary teachers read certain LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks — and the Board’s refusal to allow parental opt-outs or provide notice — were entitled to a preliminary injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Braidwood Management, Inc., et al.
Docket 24-316 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are "inferior officers" and that their appointment by the HHS Secretary complies with the Appointments Clause. The ruling preserves the Health and Human Services' ability to implement the Affordable Care Act requirement that certain preventive services be covered without cost-sharing.
Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Consumers' Research, et al.
Docket 24-354 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that Congress did not unconstitutionally delegate its power when it authorized the FCC to determine how much providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund. The Court found statutory limits and guidance sufficiently constrained the agency’s discretion.
Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, et al. v. Consumers' Research, et al.
Docket 24-422 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
In Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers' Research, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded, holding that the FCC exceeded Congress's grant of authority when it set contribution rates for the Universal Service Fund using USAC projections. The Court found the agency's delegation violated the nondelegation doctrine as applied and required clearer limits or procedures.
Free Speech Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
Docket 23-1122 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit, upholding Texas H.B. 1181, which requires certain commercial websites that publish sexually explicit content that is obscene to minors to verify visitors are 18 or older. The Court held the law only incidentally burdens adults’ access to protected speech and survives intermediate scrutiny.
Eunice Medina, Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al.
Docket 23-1275 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Medicaid Act’s “any‑qualified‑provider” provision (42 U.S.C. §1396a(a)(23)(A)) does not clearly and unambiguously create a private right enforceable by a Medicaid beneficiary under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case.
Pierre Yassue Nashun Riley v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General
Docket 23-1270 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
The Supreme Court held that the 30‑day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1) for challenging a ‘‘final order of removal’’ is not a jurisdictional limit but a mandatory claims‑processing rule. The Court also ruled that a Board of Immigration Appeals denial of deferral in a ‘‘withholding‑only’’ proceeding is not a ‘‘final order of removal.’’
Tony R. Hewitt v. United States
Docket 23-1002 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Court held that the First Step Act’s §403(b) applies only when a defendant’s prior sentence “has . . . been imposed” and remains extant (not vacated). As a result, defendants whose earlier §924(c) convictions were vacated cannot rely on §403(b) to trigger the Act’s lower mandatory minimums for later convictions.
Corey Deyon Duffey and Jarvis Dupree Ross v. United States
Docket 23-1150 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Supreme Court decided that the First Step Act’s reduced-sentencing rules apply when a defendant who was originally sentenced before the Act is later resentenced after the Act’s passage. The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with that ruling.
Ruben Gutierrez v. Luis Saenz, et al.
Docket 23-7809 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Supreme Court held that Ruben Gutierrez has standing to bring a 42 U.S.C. §1983 due-process challenge to Texas’s postconviction DNA-testing procedures. The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Docket 24-7 · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
In Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA (24-7), the Supreme Court held that fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval of California’s greenhouse-gas standards and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate. The Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.
United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
Docket 24-151 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a case holding that a 2019 law (the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act) did not automatically make the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) subject to U.S. personal jurisdiction for certain terrorism-related suits. The Court's opinion limits how Congress's provision operates and sends the case back for further proceedings.
Miriam Fuld, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
Docket 24-20 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and upheld part of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA). The Court held that the statute’s provision treating the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) as having consented to personal jurisdiction in certain Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) suits does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements.
Edgardo Esteras v. United States
Docket 23-7483 · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
The Supreme Court held that district courts may not consider the §3553(a)(2)(A) retribution factor (reflecting punishment for the underlying offense) when deciding whether to revoke supervised release. The Court vacated and remanded the Sixth Circuit decision in Edgardo Esteras v. United States.
Food and Drug Administration, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., et al.
Docket 23-1187 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
The Supreme Court held that retailers who would sell a new tobacco product but are blocked by the FDA’s denial of authorization can pursue judicial review under the statutory review provision. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case.
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
Docket 23-1226 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson, the Supreme Court decided (June 20, 2025) that the Hobbs Act does not require federal district courts to accept an agency’s interpretation of a statute in civil litigation. District courts must interpret statutes themselves using ordinary tools of statutory interpretation, although they may give some weight to an agency interpretation in appropriate cases.
Karyn D. Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida
Docket 23-997 · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The Supreme Court held that to win an ADA discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. §12112(a), a plaintiff must have held or sought the job and been able to perform its essential functions (with or without reasonable accommodation) at the time of the employer’s allegedly discriminatory act. The Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision for the City of Sanford.
Oklahoma, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Docket 23-1067 · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
The Supreme Court held that EPA’s 2023 disapprovals of Oklahoma’s and Utah’s state plans to implement national ozone standards are “locally or regionally applicable” and therefore may be reviewed in the regional U.S. Courts of Appeals under the Clean Air Act. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and remanded the cases for further proceedings in the appropriate regional courts.
PacifiCorp, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Docket 23-1068 · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and held that not every EPA disapproval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) must be heard in the D.C. Circuit under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). State-specific SIP disapprovals that are not part of a coordinated, multi-state rulemaking can be challenged in other federal courts of appeals.
May 21, 2026
1 argument remaining
Session
Order List Issuance Day
May 26, 2026
1 argument remaining
Session
Conference/Non-argument Day
May 28, 2026
1 argument remaining
Coming up
October Term 2025
May 14, 2026
Conference/Non-argument Day
Docket · Conference/Non-argument Day
May 18, 2026
Order List Issuance Day
Docket · Order List Issuance Day
May 21, 2026
Conference/Non-argument Day
Docket · Conference/Non-argument Day
May 26, 2026
Order List Issuance Day
Docket · Order List Issuance Day
May 28, 2026
Conference/Non-argument Day
Docket · Conference/Non-argument Day