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 438Total 455

All cases

455

Granted

438

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.

22814View 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.

27713View 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.

33613View 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.

15412View 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.

11811View 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.

14412View case →
October Term 2025Emergency docketDecided

Court Refuses Stay of Order Blocking Removal of Fed Governor Lisa Cook

STAY TRUMP V. COOK

Docket 25A312 · USCA-DC

Granted
ArguedJan 21
DecidedJun 29

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the government's emergency request to stay a lower court's preliminary injunction that blocks the attempted removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Court refused to pause the district court’s order while litigation over her removal proceeds.

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..

18513View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether federal courts can hear non-constitutional challenges to termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

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 federal statute (8 U.S.C. §1254a(b)(5)(A)) bars judicial review of nonconstitutional claims challenging the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The Court also found respondents’ equal-protection claim—that the termination of Haiti’s TPS was driven by race—was unlikely to succeed and remanded the cases to the lower court.

13913View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Presidential Immunity for Official Acts in Immigration Enforcement 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 and remanded the D.C. Circuit’s decision, holding that the president has immunity for official acts tied to immigration enforcement. The decision narrows circumstances in which private plaintiffs can sue a sitting president for actions taken in an official capacity.

283View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether federal law bars state failure-to-warn claims against Monsanto over Roundup's cancer risk

Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell

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

GrantedJan 16
ArguedApr 27
DecidedJun 25

The Supreme Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts a Missouri state-law failure-to-warn claim that would force Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup's label. The Court reversed and remanded the lower court's judgment.

13713View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether migrants stopped on the Mexican side of the border "arrive in the United States" for asylum and inspection rights

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” — and therefore may apply for asylum and must be inspected by immigration officers — only after crossing the border into U.S. territory. The Ninth Circuit judgment was reversed and remanded.

6314View 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 held that Hawaii’s law forbidding licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property that is open to the public unless the property owner gives express permission violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The Ninth Circuit’s judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

13914View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows courts to create aiding-and-abetting claims against companies

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 reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling that federal courts may not judicially create new private causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for aiding and abetting, and that neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) imposes aiding-and-abetting liability. The case involved claims against Cisco and other companies for providing services allegedly used in foreign human-rights abuses.

12313View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether border officers need clear and convincing evidence before treating a lawful permanent resident as an applicant 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 that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require border officers to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident (LPR) committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that resident as an "applicant for admission." The case was vacated and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

2811View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether governments may keep surplus from tax-sale auctions or must pay fair market value

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 held that when a government conducts a fair tax foreclosure sale, the auction sale price is the proper baseline for calculating "just compensation" under the Takings Clause. The Court vacated the lower-court judgment and remanded for further proceedings, and found no Eighth Amendment excessive-fines violation on the record before it.

10911View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Helms-Burton Suit: Can U.S. Courts Hear Claims Against Cuban State Companies for 1960 Expropriations?

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 removes sovereign immunity for Cuban agencies and instrumentalities, permitting U.S. nationals to sue them in U.S. courts for trafficking in property confiscated in 1960. The case was reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with that holding.

5912View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether State Prison Officials Can Be Sued Personally Under RLUIPA for Religious Rights Violations

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 held that state employees cannot be sued in their personal capacities under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) unless they voluntarily and knowingly consented to be sued under a federal Spending Clause statute. The decision affirms the Fifth Circuit and limits personal-capacity damages claims against state officials under RLUIPA.

12312View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Rooker-Feldman Blocks Federal Court Review of Ongoing State-Case Decisions

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 the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district-court jurisdiction over claims by state-court losers that complain of injuries caused by state-court judgments and seek federal review or relief, even when the state-court decision is still subject to further review in state court. The Fourth Circuit ruling was affirmed.

4113View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Is an Appeal Waiver Unenforceable? Hunter v. United States (appeal-waiver miscarriage-of-justice rule)

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 held that plea agreement appeal waivers are unenforceable when enforcing them would produce a miscarriage of justice — i.e., when an egregious legal error would remain uncorrected and undermine confidence in the system. The case was vacated and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with that standard.

4811View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether federal ban on firearm possession by drug users violates the Second Amendment — United States v. Ali Danial Hemani

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 Supreme Court held that prosecuting Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) for possessing a gun while an unlawful user of controlled substances is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The Court affirmed in part and issued an opinion explaining the constitutional limits of §922(g)(3).

9114View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Venue Limits for Federal Obstruction Charges: Trial Must Be Where the False Statement Was Made

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 reversed and remanded, holding that for convictions under 18 U.S.C. §1519 (knowingly falsifying documents with intent to obstruct a federal investigation), venue is proper only in the district where the falsification occurred. The United States cannot prosecute in a district that only might experience effects contemplated by the statute.

3811View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Does Judicial Estoppel Apply to Bankruptcy Omissions? Totality-of-Circumstances Test Clarified

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 deciding whether a party’s failure to list a claim in bankruptcy was inadvertent should consider the totality of the circumstances. The Fifth Circuit had applied the wrong standard when finding judicial estoppel barred the claim.

4011View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether private parties can sue for rescission under Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act

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 ruled that Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act does not impliedly allow private parties to bring rescission lawsuits for contracts that allegedly violate the Act. The decision reverses the Second Circuit and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with that holding.

6813View 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 Can Fine Carriers for Failing to Protect Customer Data, Court Affirms

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 may assess monetary forfeiture penalties against telecommunications carriers for violating the Communications Act’s customer‑privacy protections. The decision upholds the FCC’s power to enforce requirements that carriers take reasonable measures to protect certain customer proprietary network information.

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 negligence at Bagram: veteran's lawsuit over suicide bombing allowed to proceed

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 ruled that the federal government’s control over a military base did not automatically preempt state-law tort claims against a private contractor whose actions contributed to a suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

6211View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Can Federal Contractors Remove State Suits? Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish on Federal-Officer Removal

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 Fifth Circuit and remanded, holding Chevron plausibly showed its oil-production activities were closely related to its federal contract to refine aviation gasoline, satisfying the federal-officer removal statute. The case returns to the lower courts for further proceedings. Justice Alito did not participate.

9511View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Colorado Ban on 'Conversion Therapy' Struck Down as Viewpoint-Based Restriction on Talk Therapy

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 Christian counselor’s talk therapy regulates speech based on viewpoint. The lower courts should have applied stricter First Amendment review.

32613View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

When Is an Internet Provider Liable for Users’ Copyright Infringement? Cox v. Sony Explained

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 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.

13712View case →
October Term 2025MeritsDecided

Whether supervised-release terms pause when a person flees: 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 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.

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