HomeScheduleJusticesCasesOpinionsAdvocatesStatsHow It Works

Opinions

Decisions, authorship, and vote alignment.

Majority opinions, concurrences, dissents, and per curiam decisions — organized by author, vote split, and case context.

Opinions

Loading opinion 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.

All

713

This term

47

Per curiam

19

Opinion type breakdown

How the opinions divide

Majority 331
Concurrences 199
Dissents 164
Per curiam 19

Opinion of the Court

The controlling opinion when a majority joins it. This is the decision most Americans mean when they ask what the Court held.

Concurrence

Agrees with the judgment but adds a different reason, a narrower rule, or a warning about where the law should go next.

Dissent

Explains why one or more justices think the Court got the case wrong. Often becomes the language people remember years later.

Latest opinion

The most recent decision from the Court.

Per curiamOctober Term 2025May 21, 2026

Whether States May Require Proof of IQ 70-or-Lower by a Preponderance in Death-Row Intellectual Disability Claims

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

Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

View caseOfficial PDF

Type

Per curiam

Joiners

0

All opinions

The opinion stream.

Each card shows the opinion type, authoring justice, vote split, and a summary — color-coded by type so you can scan the stream at a glance.

Opinion of the CourtMay 21, 2026

How Much Can Employers Be Charged When They Leave Multiemployer Pension Plans? M & K Employee Solutions v. IAM Trustees

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

Official portrait of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Ketanji Brown Jackson · 23-1209

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.

Case page →
PDF
Opinion of the CourtMay 21, 2026

Can U.S. Victims Sue Over Cuban‑Confiscated Property Under the LIBERTAD Act?

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

Official portrait of Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas · 24-983

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.

Case page →PDF
ConcurrenceMay 14, 2026

Whether federal law blocks state negligent-hiring claims after a truck crash: Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II

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

Official portrait of Brett M. Kavanaugh
Brett M. Kavanaugh · 24-1238

The Court reversed and sent the case back. The unanimous Court’s judgment rejected the lower court’s reading of a federal statute that preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service” of motor carriers. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurrence, joined by Justice Alito, explaining his narrower view of how the statute should be applied and why certain state-law claims should not survive federal preemption.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtMay 14, 2026

Whether federal law blocks state negligent-hiring claims after a truck crash: Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II

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

Official portrait of Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney Barrett · 24-1238

The Supreme Court held (opinion by Justice Barrett) that a state-law negligent-hiring claim against a company that selected a motor carrier is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s (FAAAA) broad preemption clause. The Court reasoned that the FAAAA preserves States’ authority to regulate safety “with respect to motor vehicles,” so a claim aimed at who was chosen to operate a truck and whether that choice endangered safety may proceed under state law.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtMay 14, 2026

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

Adrian Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, et al.

Official portrait of Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor · 25-83

The Court held that if a federal court previously stayed a lawsuit under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), that same court has the power to confirm or vacate the arbitration award on those stayed claims under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtApr 29, 2026

State Subpoena for Donor Names Violated Pregnancy Center's First Amendment Rights, Court Rules

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

Official portrait of Neil M. Gorsuch
Neil M. Gorsuch · 24-781

In a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Supreme Court held that the faith-based pregnancy center First Choice has Article III standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. §1983 because the Attorney General’s investigatory subpoena—demanding documents and most of the center’s donors’ names—caused a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtApr 29, 2026

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

Louisiana v. Phillip Callais, et al.

Official portrait of Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · 24-109

The Court ruled that Louisiana did not have to draw an additional majority-Black district under the Voting Rights Act, the State’s use of race in making SB8 was not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, and the map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtApr 22, 2026

Contractor Liability for Attack at Bagram Airfield: Hencely v. Fluor — Court Allows State Tort Claims

Winston Tyler Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, et al.

Official portrait of Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas · 24-924

The Court held that Fluor Corporation’s conduct was not shielded by federal preemption because the government neither ordered nor authorized the contractor’s actions that contributed to a suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield. The Fourth Circuit was reversed and the state-law claims may proceed.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtApr 22, 2026

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

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

Official portrait of Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor · 24-783

The Court held that the 30‑day deadline for removing a case from state to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling. Enbridge’s late removal was untimely, so the case remained in state court.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtApr 17, 2026

When Can Federal Contractors Remove State Lawsuits? Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish (federal-officer removal rules)

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

Official portrait of Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas · 24-813

The Court held that Chevron plausibly showed its oil-production activities were closely connected to performance of a federal contract to refine aviation gasoline, so the suit may be removed to federal court under the federal‑officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1).

Case page →PDF
DissentMar 31, 2026

Colorado Conversion-Therapy Ban Invalid as Applied to a Christian Counselor’s Talk Therapy

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

Official portrait of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Ketanji Brown Jackson · 24-539

The Supreme Court reversed a lower-court ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by seven justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissenting opinion.

Case page →PDF
ConcurrenceMar 31, 2026

Colorado Conversion-Therapy Ban Invalid as Applied to a Christian Counselor’s Talk Therapy

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

Official portrait of Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan · 24-539

The Court reversed a lower-court judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings. Justice Kagan wrote a separate opinion that agrees with the result but adds her own reasoning; Justice Sotomayor joined that concurrence. Justice Jackson dissented.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtMar 31, 2026

Colorado Conversion-Therapy Ban Invalid as Applied to a Christian Counselor’s Talk Therapy

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

Official portrait of Neil M. Gorsuch
Neil M. Gorsuch · 24-539
8–1

The Supreme Court reversed and sent the case back, holding that Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” as applied to this counselor’s talk therapy regulates speech based on viewpoint and requires stricter First Amendment review than the lower courts used.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtMar 25, 2026

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.

Official portrait of Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas · 24-171
7–2

In a 7–2 decision, the Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and held that Cox Communications cannot be held contributorily liable for its customers’ copyright infringement because the record did not show Cox induced infringement or provided a service designed to facilitate it.

Case page →PDF
DissentMar 25, 2026

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

Isabel Rico v. United States

Official portrait of Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · 24-1056

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in Isabel Rico v. United States. Justice Gorsuch wrote the Court’s majority opinion (joined by eight justices) holding on the central question; Justice Alito filed a dissent. The case asked whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine — which pauses statutory time limits while a defendant is a fugitive — applies to supervised release.

Case page →PDF
ConcurrenceMar 25, 2026

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.

Official portrait of Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor · 24-171

Justice Sotomayor agreed with the Court’s decision to reverse and remand the Fourth Circuit’s ruling that internet service providers can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely for continuing to provide accounts known to be used for infringement. She wrote a separate opinion explaining why she would resolve the case on narrower grounds.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtMar 25, 2026

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

Isabel Rico v. United States

Official portrait of Neil M. Gorsuch
Neil M. Gorsuch · 24-1056
8–1

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court held that federal law does not allow an automatic extension of a defendant’s supervised release term simply because the defendant failed to report to a probation officer.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtMar 20, 2026

Whether Heck Bars Prospective §1983 Relief After a Conviction — Olivier v. City of Brandon

Gabriel Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi

Official portrait of Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan · 24-993

The Court ruled that a person who was previously punished for breaking a law can still bring a civil-rights lawsuit seeking only prospective relief (an injunction) to stop officials from enforcing that same law in the future; the decision in Heck v. Humphrey does not bar such claims.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtMar 4, 2026

How the Court Applied the Substantial-Evidence Standard to Asylum Persecution Findings

Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, et al. v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General

Official portrait of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Ketanji Brown Jackson · 24-777

In Urias-Orellana v. Bondi (2026), the Supreme Court held that when the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decides, based on undisputed facts, whether those facts amount to persecution under the statutory definition of “refugee,” courts must review that BIA determination under the substantial-evidence standard.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtMar 4, 2026

Interstate Sovereign Immunity Does Not Protect New Jersey Transit Corporation in Galette v. NJ Transit

Cedric Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation

Official portrait of Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor · 24-1021

The Court held that New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is not an "arm of the State" and therefore cannot claim interstate sovereign immunity under the Constitution. As a result, NJ Transit can be sued in federal court on claims that would otherwise be barred if it were considered the State itself.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtFeb 25, 2026

Pretrial Denial of Yearsley Defense Is Not Immediately Appealable Under §1291

The GEO Group, Inc. v. Alejandro Menocal, et al.

Official portrait of Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan · 24-758

The Court held that a pretrial denial of the Yearsley defense — a defense available to federal contractors based on the scope of authority conferred by the government — is not an immunity from suit and therefore not immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine of 28 U.S.C. §1291.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtFeb 25, 2026

Upholds Limited Ban on Discussing a Defendant's Testimony During Overnight Recess

David Asa Villarreal v. Texas

Official portrait of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Ketanji Brown Jackson · 24-557
7–2

The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that a trial judge may bar a defendant and their lawyer from talking about the defendant’s own testimony during an overnight recess taken in the middle of that testimony. The Court said such a narrowly tailored order balances the Sixth Amendment right to counsel with the need to prevent coached or altered testimony and does not violate the Constitution.

Case page →PDF
ConcurrenceFeb 25, 2026

Upholds Limited Ban on Discussing a Defendant's Testimony During Overnight Recess

David Asa Villarreal v. Texas

Official portrait of Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas · 24-557

The Court affirmed the conviction. Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment (joined by Justice Gorsuch). Thomas agreed the conviction should stand but wrote separately to explain his different reasoning about whether a trial court can bar a defendant and his lawyer from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess.

Case page →PDF
ConcurrenceFeb 25, 2026

Upholds Limited Ban on Discussing a Defendant's Testimony During Overnight Recess

David Asa Villarreal v. Texas

Official portrait of Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · 24-557

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion addressing the Sixth Amendment question about whether a trial court may bar a defendant and defense counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtFeb 24, 2026

USPS Immune From FTCA Claims for Intentional Nondelivery of Mail

United States Postal Service, et al. v. Lebene Konan

Official portrait of Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas · 24-351

The Supreme Court held (opinion by Justice Thomas) that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal exception, 28 U.S.C. §2680(b), bars suits against the United States for injuries that arise from the intentional nondelivery of mail. The Court reasoned that both “miscarriage” and “loss” of mail — terms used in the statutory exception — can result from intentionally failing to deliver, so the government keeps sovereign immunity for those claims.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtFeb 24, 2026

Whether federal judgment stands when a non‑diverse defendant was wrongly dismissed after removal

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al. v. Sarah Palmquist, Individually and as Next Friend of E.P., a Minor, et al.

Official portrait of Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor · 24-724

The Court held that a federal district court’s judgment must be set aside if, at the time the case was removed to federal court, complete diversity did not exist and the district court erroneously dismissed the non‑diverse defendant after removal. The Fifth Circuit was correct to vacate the judgment for Hain Celestial Group because the jurisdictional defect existed at removal and was not cured by a later, improper dismissal of the non‑diverse party.

Case page →PDF
Concurrence in partFeb 20, 2026

Upholds President's Use of IEEPA to Impose Trade Tariffs; Some Parts Remanded

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al.

Official portrait of Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan · 25-250

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. Justice Kagan wrote a concurrence in part and in the judgment (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson). The case asked whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorized tariffs imposed under several national emergency proclamations and executive orders. The Court’s judgment left some aspects resolved by the majority opinion and sent one related case back to lower court for lack of jurisdiction.

Case page →
Opinion of the CourtFeb 20, 2026

Rules IEEPA Does Not Let President Impose Tariffs

Learning Resources, Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al.

Official portrait of John G. Roberts, Jr.
John G. Roberts, Jr. · 24-1287

In a decision by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The opinion rejects the government's reading of IEEPA and limits presidential economic emergency powers. Vote alignment not provided in the input.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtFeb 20, 2026

Upholds President's Use of IEEPA to Impose Trade Tariffs; Some Parts Remanded

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al.

Official portrait of John G. Roberts, Jr.
John G. Roberts, Jr. · 25-250
6–3

In a 6–3 decision, the Court affirmed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorized the tariffs imposed under the listed proclamations and executive orders. The Court also vacated a separate judgment and sent that case back to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, drew multiple concurrences and two dissents that disagreed about statutory interpretation and jurisdiction.

Case page →
DissentFeb 20, 2026

Upholds President's Use of IEEPA to Impose Trade Tariffs; Some Parts Remanded

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al.

Official portrait of Brett M. Kavanaugh
Brett M. Kavanaugh · 25-250

The Court upheld a lower-court outcome (judgment affirmed overall) but the decision produced multiple opinions. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissent, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, arguing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does authorize the tariffs imposed under the cited proclamations and executive orders. The majority reached a different conclusion and divided across several opinions.

Case page →
DissentFeb 20, 2026

Upholds President's Use of IEEPA to Impose Trade Tariffs; Some Parts Remanded

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al.

Official portrait of Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas · 25-250

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Chief Justice Roberts announced the judgment; most Justices joined parts of the opinion upholding aspects of the government action. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent objecting to the Court's rulings.

Case page →
Concurrence in partFeb 20, 2026

Upholds President's Use of IEEPA to Impose Trade Tariffs; Some Parts Remanded

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al.

Official portrait of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Ketanji Brown Jackson · 25-250

The Supreme Court issued a fragmented decision about whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorized certain tariffs imposed during the Trump administration. The Court ultimately affirmed the lower court's judgment, vacated and remanded one related judgment for lack of jurisdiction, and produced several separate opinions. Justice Jackson wrote a partial concurrence explaining why she agreed with the outcome in part and with the judgment overall.

Case page →
ConcurrenceJan 20, 2026

Whether Delaware’s affidavit-of-merit rule applies in federal court — Delaware AOM conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Harold R. Berk v. Wilson C. Choy, et al.

Official portrait of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Ketanji Brown Jackson · 24-440

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a case about how a state's procedural rule — Delaware's affidavit-of-merit requirement — applies in federal court. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the judgment (reverse and remand) but wrote a separate opinion explaining her own reasoning.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtJan 20, 2026

Whether Delaware’s affidavit-of-merit rule applies in federal court — Delaware AOM conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

Harold R. Berk v. Wilson C. Choy, et al.

Official portrait of Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney Barrett · 24-440
8–1

The Court held (8–1) that Delaware’s law requiring a medical-malpractice plaintiff to file an expert affidavit with the complaint conflicts with a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and therefore cannot be enforced in federal court.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtJan 20, 2026

MVRA Restitution Is Criminal Punishment Under Ex Post Facto Clause

Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. v. United States

Official portrait of Brett M. Kavanaugh
Brett M. Kavanaugh · 24-482

The Supreme Court ruled that restitution ordered under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) counts as criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Case page →PDF
ConcurrenceJan 20, 2026

Court Confirms Time Limit Applies to Motions to Vacate Void Judgments Under Rule 60(b)(4)

Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Jeanne Ann Burton, Chapter 7 Trustee for Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC

Official portrait of Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor · 24-808

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment — meaning she agreed with the outcome but wrote separately to explain her reasoning or highlight points not addressed in the Court’s main opinion.

Case page →PDF
ConcurrenceJan 20, 2026

MVRA Restitution Is Criminal Punishment Under Ex Post Facto Clause

Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. v. United States

Official portrait of Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas · 24-482

The Court reversed and remanded. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the unanimous majority opinion. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, wrote a separate concurring opinion arguing that criminal restitution under the MVRA is a punitive, ex post facto problem — a narrower or different rationale than the Court’s main opinion.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtJan 20, 2026

Court Confirms Time Limit Applies to Motions to Vacate Void Judgments Under Rule 60(b)(4)

Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Jeanne Ann Burton, Chapter 7 Trustee for Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC

Official portrait of Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · 24-808
8–1

In an 8–1 decision, the Supreme Court held that the "reasonable time" deadline in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) applies to motions asking a federal court to vacate a judgment as void under Rule 60(b)(4).

Case page →PDF
DissentJan 14, 2026

Says Federal Election Day Law Preempts Some State Rules Allowing Late-Counted Ballots

Michael J. Bost, et al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al.

Official portrait of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Ketanji Brown Jackson · 24-568

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a lower-court decision holding that some state rules allowing late receipt/counting of ballots conflict with federal Election Day statutes. Justices Jackson and Sotomayor dissented from that outcome.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtJan 14, 2026

Police May Enter Home Without Warrant Only If They Objectively Reasonably Believe an Emergency Exists

William Trevor Case v. Montana

Official portrait of Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan · 24-624

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, held that the Fourth Amendment permits police to enter a home without a warrant under the emergency-aid exception when officers have an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone inside needs immediate help. Applying the Brigham City v. Stuart standard, the Court found that standard satisfied in this case.

Case page →PDF
ConcurrenceJan 14, 2026

Says Federal Election Day Law Preempts Some State Rules Allowing Late-Counted Ballots

Michael J. Bost, et al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al.

Official portrait of Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney Barrett · 24-568

The Court reversed an Illinois rule allowing ballots received after federal Election Day to be counted. Justice Barrett wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Kagan. She agreed the judgment should be reversed but wrote separately to explain her narrower reasoning.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtJan 14, 2026

Double Jeopardy Limits on Multiple §924(c) and §924(j) Sentences—Barrett v. United States

Dwayne Barrett v. United States

Official portrait of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Ketanji Brown Jackson · 24-5774
4–1

In Barrett v. United States, the Court held that Congress did not clearly authorize separate convictions (and thus separate punishments) under both §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j) for the same single act. The Second Circuit’s decision allowing two convictions for the same conduct was reversed in part and remanded.

Case page →PDF
Concurrence in partJan 14, 2026

Double Jeopardy Limits on Multiple §924(c) and §924(j) Sentences—Barrett v. United States

Dwayne Barrett v. United States

Official portrait of Neil M. Gorsuch
Neil M. Gorsuch · 24-5774

The Supreme Court reversed part of the lower-court decision and sent the case back for further proceedings. Justice Gorsuch joined the Court in reversing in part but wrote a separate opinion agreeing only with some parts of the majority's reasoning.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtJan 14, 2026

Says Federal Election Day Law Preempts Some State Rules Allowing Late-Counted Ballots

Michael J. Bost, et al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections, et al.

Official portrait of John G. Roberts, Jr.
John G. Roberts, Jr. · 24-568
5–4

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court held that Rep. Michael Bost has legal standing to challenge Illinois rules that allow ballots received after federal Election Day to be counted.

Case page →PDF
Opinion of the CourtJan 9, 2026

Whether the federal successive-petition rules block Supreme Court review of a prisoner’s second habeas motion

Michael Bowe v. United States

Official portrait of Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor · 24-5438

The Supreme Court held that the statutory gatekeeping provision in 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(E) does not prevent the Court from reviewing a federal prisoner's request for permission to file a second or successive §2255 motion, and that §2244(b)(1)’s bar on claims presented in prior applications does not apply to second-or-successive motions filed by federal prisoners under §2255(h).

Case page →PDF
DissentJun 27, 2025

Upholds Appointment of Preventive Services Task Force, Preserving ACA Preventive Care Rule

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Braidwood Management, Inc., et al.

Official portrait of Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas · 24-316

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision about whether the Affordable Care Act requires insurers and group plans to cover Task Force-recommended preventive services without cost-sharing. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion reversing the lower court. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch.

Case page →PDF
DissentJun 27, 2025

Parents Can Pause LGBTQ+-Inclusive Read-Alouds and Must Be Told About Them

Tamer Mahmoud, et al. v. Thomas W. Taylor, et al.

Official portrait of Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor · 24-297

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented from the Court’s decision to reverse and remand a lower-court ruling about a Montgomery County schoolboard requirement that elementary teachers read storybooks celebrating gender transitions, Pride events, and same-sex playground romance. The dissent explains why the majority’s ruling was wrong in the dissenting justices’ view and why the case raises important questions about students’ rights, classroom instruction, and local school authority.

Case page →PDF
HomeScheduleJusticesCasesOpinionsAdvocatesStatsHow It Works