Cases
76
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.
Term
Term pages work like a public dashboard for the Court: grants, arguments, and decisions all tied to the same annual cycle.
Term dashboard
76 cases, 141 opinions, 58 arguments.
73 grants and 74 decisions are currently attached to this term.
Cases
76
Granted
73
Decided
74
Opinions
141
Arguments
58
Recent opinions
Dissent
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
By Sonia Sotomayor · Jul 1, 2021
Concurrence in part
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jul 1, 2021
Opinion of the Court
Arizona Republican Party, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jul 1, 2021
Concurrence in part
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
By Clarence Thomas · Jul 1, 2021
Concurrence
Arizona Republican Party, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jul 1, 2021
Dissent
Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.
By Elena Kagan · Jul 1, 2021
Dissent
Arizona Republican Party, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.
By Elena Kagan · Jul 1, 2021
Concurrence
Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jul 1, 2021
Opinion of the Court
Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jul 1, 2021
Opinion of the Court
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jul 1, 2021
Concurrence in part
Thomas More Law Center v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
By Clarence Thomas · Jul 1, 2021
Opinion of the Court
Thomas More Law Center v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jul 1, 2021
Dissent
Thomas More Law Center v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
By Sonia Sotomayor · Jul 1, 2021
Concurrence in part
Thomas More Law Center v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jul 1, 2021
Opinion of the Court
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., et al.
By Elena Kagan · Jun 29, 2021
Dissent
PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC v. New Jersey, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 29, 2021
Dissent
Tae D. Johnson, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Maria Angelica Guzman Chavez, et al.
By Stephen G. Breyer · Jun 29, 2021
Opinion of the Court
PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC v. New Jersey, et al.
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 29, 2021
Dissent
PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC v. New Jersey, et al.
By Amy Coney Barrett · Jun 29, 2021
Concurrence
Tae D. Johnson, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Maria Angelica Guzman Chavez, et al.
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 29, 2021
Opinion of the Court
Tae D. Johnson, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Maria Angelica Guzman Chavez, et al.
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jun 29, 2021
Dissent
TransUnion LLC v. Sergio L. Ramirez
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 25, 2021
Dissent
TransUnion LLC v. Sergio L. Ramirez
By Elena Kagan · Jun 25, 2021
Opinion of the Court
TransUnion LLC v. Sergio L. Ramirez
By Brett M. Kavanaugh · Jun 25, 2021
Oral arguments
May Session
May 4, 2021
Argued. For petitioner: Andrew L. Adler, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. For respondent: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below: Adam K. Mortara, Chicago, Ill.
April Session
Apr 28, 2021
Argued. For petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.; and Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: David D. Cole, of Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 28, 2021
Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, Counsel to the Attorney General, Trenton, N. J.
April Session
Apr 27, 2021
Argued. For petitioners: Peter D. Keisler, Washington, D. C. For federal respondent: Christopher G. Michel, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For private respondents: Matthew W. Morrison, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 27, 2021
Argued. For petitioner: Erica L. Ross, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Bradley N. Garcia, Washington, D. C. (Appointed by this Court.)
Cases
20-138
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al. v. Sierra Club, et al.
Whether respondents have a cognizable cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary's compliance with Section 8005's proviso in transferring funds internally between DoD appropriations accounts. 2. Whether the Acting Secretary exceeded his statutory authority under Section 8005 in making the transfers at...
19-1328
Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary
Whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion of respondent to remove the case from the December 2020 argument calendar is granted.
19-251
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
Whether the exacting scrutiny this Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context—as called for by NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny—can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the...
19-255
April Session
Apr 26, 2021
Argued. For petitioner: Gregory G. Garre, Bethesda, Md. For respondent: Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 26, 2021
Argued. For petitioners: Derek L. Shaffer, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Aimee A. Feinberg, Deputy Solicitor General, Sacramento, Cal. VIDED.
April Session
Apr 21, 2021
Argued. For petitioner: Robert N. Hochman, Chicago, Ill. For United States, as amicus curiae: Morgan L. Ratner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Matthew M. Wolf, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 21, 2021
Argued. For petitioner: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex. For respondents: David B. Salmons, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 20, 2021
Argued. For petitioner: M. Allison Guagliardo, Assistant Federal Defender, Tampa, Fla. For respondent: Benjamin W. Snyder, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C..
April Session
Apr 20, 2021
Argued. For petitioner: Jonathan Y. Ellis, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. (Appointed by this Court)
April Session
Apr 19, 2021
Argued. For petitioners: Amy M. Saharia, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Michael R. Huston, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 19, 2021
Argued. For petitioner in 20-543: Matthew Guarnieri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioners in 20-544: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Jeffrey S. Rasmussen, Louisville, Colo. VIDED.
March Session
Mar 31, 2021
Argued. For petitioners: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Jeffrey L. Kessler, New York, N. Y.; and Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) VIDED.
March Session
Mar 30, 2021
Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae: Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Samuel Issacharoff, New York, N. Y.
March Session
Mar 29, 2021
Argued. For petitioners: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Thomas C. Goldstein, Bethesda, Md.
Thomas More Law Center v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
Whether exacting scrutiny or strict scrutiny applies to disclosure requirements that burden non-electoral, expressive association rights. 2. Whether California’s disclosure requirement violates charities’ and their donors’ freedom of association and speech facially or as applied to the Law Center. CONSOLIDATED WITH...
19-1257
Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.
Does Arizona's out-of-precinct policy violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? 2. Does Arizona's ballot-collection law violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment?
19-1258
Arizona Republican Party, et al. v. Democratic National Committee, et al.
Whether § 2 of the Voting Rights Act compels states to authorize any voting practice that would be used disproportionately by racial minorities, even if existing voting procedures are race-neutral and offer all voters an equal opportunity to vote. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that Arizona's ballot-har...
19-1039
PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC v. New Jersey, et al.
ORDER OF FEBRUARY 3, 2021: IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: DID THE COURT OF APPEALS PROPERLY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THIS CASE? THE CASE WILL BE SET FOR ARGUMENT IN THE APRIL 2021 ARGUMENT SESSION.
20-440
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., et al.
In the Patent Act, Congress established that invalidity is a “defense[] in any action involving the validity or infringement of a patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) (emphasis added). There is no textual exception to this command. The Federal Circuit nonetheless applies a judge-made “equitable” exception to the statute’s un...
19-897
Tae D. Johnson, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Maria Angelica Guzman Chavez, et al.
Whether the detention of an alien who is subject to a reinstated removal order and who is pursuing withholding or deferral of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231, or instead by 8 U.S.C. 1226.
20-472
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC, et al. v. Renewable Fuels Association, et al.
The Renewable Fuel Standard requires refiners, blenders, and importers of transportation fuel to blend increasing amounts of renewable fuels into their products each year. Recognizing that this mandate could harm small refineries, Congress provided that small refineries facing "disproportionate economic hardship" co...
20-543
Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, et al.
In the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security or CARES Act, Congress directed the Secretary of the Treasury to disburse $8 billion of relief funds “to Tribal governments.” Pub. L. No. 116-136, Div. A, Tit. V,§ 5001(a), 134 Stat. 501-502 (42 U.S.C. 801(a)(2)(B)). The CARES Act defines a “Tribal government” as...
20-544
Alaska Native Village Corporation Association, Inc., et al. v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, et al.
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) defines “Indian tribe” as: any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act...
20-297
TransUnion LLC v. Sergio L. Ramirez
Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered. 2. Whether a punitive damages award that is multiple times greater than an already-substantial classwide award...
20-255
Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L., a Minor, By and Through Her Father, Lawrence Levy and Her Mother, Betty Lou Levy
Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off campus.
20-107
Cedar Point Nursery, et al. v. Victoria Hassid, et al.
California law forces agricultural businesses to allow labor organizers onto their property three times a day for 120 days each year. The regulation provides no mechanism for compensation. A divided panel below held that, although the regulation takes an uncompensated easement, it does not effect a per se physical t...
20-18
Arthur Gregory Lange v. California
Absent "consent" or "exigent circumstances," a police officer's "entry into a home to conduct a search or make an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless done pursuant to a warrant." Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 211 (1981). The question presented is: Does pursuit of a person who a police...
19-422
Patrick J. Collins, et al. v. Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
Whether FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers; and 2. Whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent. CONSOLIDATED WITH 19-563 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. ORDER OF AUGUST...
19-563
Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. v. Patrick J. Collins, et al.
Whether the statute's anti-injunction clause, which precludes courts from taking any action that would "restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator," 12 U.S.C. 4617(f), precludes a federal court from setting aside the Third Amendment. 2. Whether the statute's succession clau...
20-512
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Shawne Alston, et al.
Whether the Ninth Circuit erroneously held, in conflict with decisions of other circuits and general antitrust principles, that the National Collegiate Athletic Association eligibility rules regarding compensation of student-athletes violate federal antitrust law. CONSOLIDATED WITH 20-520 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT.
20-520
American Athletic Conference, et al. v. Shawne Alston, et al.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a nonprofit association that sets the rules governing college athletics, including the rules limiting the payments that colleges may make to student- athletes. As this Court has explained, "the NCAA seeks to market a particular brand of [sports]-college [sports]...
20-222
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, et al.
Whether a defendant in a securities class action may rebut the presumption of classwide reliance recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), by pointing to the generic nature of the alleged misstatements in showing that the statements had no impact on the price of the security, even though that eviden...
19-1212
Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Innovation Law Lab, et al.
Whether MPP is a lawful implementation of the statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C). 2. Whether MPP is consistent with any applicable and enforceable non- refoulement obligations. 3. Whether MPP is exempt from the APA requirement of notice-and-comment rulemaking. 4. Whether the district court's uni...
19-1434
United States v. Arthrex, Inc., et al.
Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II,§ 2, Cl. 2, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with the Senate's advice and consent, or "inferior Officers" whose appointment Congress has permissibly...
19-1452
Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al.
Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with the Senate's advice and consent, or "inferior Officers" whose appointment Congress has permissibly...