Cases
78
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
78 cases, 142 opinions, 63 arguments.
75 grants and 71 decisions are currently attached to this term.
Cases
78
Granted
75
Decided
71
Opinions
142
Arguments
63
Recent opinions
Concurrence
Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 30, 2022
Dissent
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al. v. Texas, et al.
By Amy Coney Barrett · Jun 30, 2022
Concurrence
West Virginia, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 30, 2022
Dissent
West Virginia, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By Elena Kagan · Jun 30, 2022
Opinion of the Court
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al. v. Texas, et al.
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 30, 2022
Concurrence
The North American Coal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 30, 2022
Dissent
The North American Coal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By Elena Kagan · Jun 30, 2022
Opinion of the Court
The North American Coal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 30, 2022
Opinion of the Court
Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 30, 2022
Dissent
Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By Elena Kagan · Jun 30, 2022
Opinion of the Court
West Virginia, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 30, 2022
Concurrence
North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 30, 2022
Dissent
North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By Elena Kagan · Jun 30, 2022
Opinion of the Court
North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 30, 2022
Concurrence
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al. v. Texas, et al.
By Brett M. Kavanaugh · Jun 30, 2022
Dissent
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al. v. Texas, et al.
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jun 30, 2022
Opinion of the Court
Oklahoma v. Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta
By Brett M. Kavanaugh · Jun 29, 2022
Dissent
Oklahoma v. Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 29, 2022
Opinion of the Court
Le Roy Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety
By Stephen G. Breyer · Jun 29, 2022
Dissent
Le Roy Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 29, 2022
Concurrence
Le Roy Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety
By Elena Kagan · Jun 29, 2022
Dissent
Carlos Concepcion v. United States
By Brett M. Kavanaugh · Jun 27, 2022
Opinion of the Court
Carlos Concepcion v. United States
By Sonia Sotomayor · Jun 27, 2022
Dissent
Joseph A. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
By Sonia Sotomayor · Jun 27, 2022
Oral arguments
April Session
Apr 27, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Zachary C. Schauf, Washington, D. C.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
April Session
Apr 26, 2022
Argued. For petitioners: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Judd E. Stone, II, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.
April Session
Apr 26, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor General, Columbus, Ohio. For United States, as amicus curiae: Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: David A. O'Neil, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 25, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Richard B. Katskee, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 25, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Matthew S. Hellman, Washington, D. C.; and Masha G. Hansford, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Stephen J. Petrany, Solicitor General, Atlanta, Ga.
April Session
Apr 20, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Roman Martinez, Washington, D. C.; and Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Paul L. Hoffman, Hermosa Beach, Cal.
Cases
21-954
Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al. v. Texas, et al.
Whether 8 U.S.C. 1225 requires DHS to continue implementing MPP. 2. Whether the court of appeals erred by concluding that the Secretary's new decision terminating MPP had no legal effect. THE CASE WILL BE SET FOR ARGUMENT IN THE SECOND WEEK OF THE APRIL 2022 ARGUMENT SESSION. EXPEDITED BRIEFING. ORDER OF MAY 2, 2022...
20-1530
West Virginia, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
In 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), an ancillary provision of the Clean Air Act, did Congress constitutionally authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant rules-including those capable of reshaping the nation's electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually any sector of the economy-without an...
20-1531
The North American Coal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
In 2015, the EPA promulgated its "Clean Power Plan," which for the first time imposed carbon dioxide emissions limits on existing coal- and gas-fired power plants. The EPA developed those standards based not on any technology that the plants could themselves apply in their operations, but instead on an industrywide...
20-1778
April Session
Apr 19, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Melanie L. Bostwick, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 19, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Andrew L. Adler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. For respondent: Benjamin W. Snyder, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 18, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Tera M. Heintz, Deputy Solicitor General, Olympia, Wash.
April Session
Apr 18, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex. For respondent: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
March Session
Mar 30, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Scott L. Nelson, Washington, D. C.
March Session
Mar 29, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt, Washington, D. C.; and Christopher G. Michel, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Judd E. Stone, II, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.
March Session
Mar 28, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Jennifer D. Bennett, San Francisco, Cal.
March Session
Mar 28, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C.; and Colleen E. Sinzdak, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: J. Scott Ballenger, Washington, D. C.
March Session
Mar 23, 2022
Argued. For petitioners in 21-401: Roman Martinez, Washington, D. C. For petitioners in 21-518: Joseph T. Baio, New York, N. Y. For United States, as amicus curiae, supporting petitioners: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 21-401: Andrew R. Davies, New York, N. Y. For respondent in 21-518: Alexander A. Yanos, New York, N. Y. VIDED.
March Session
Mar 22, 2022
Argued. For petitioner: Karen R. King, New York, N. Y. For United States, as amicus curiae: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Richard Min, New York, N. Y.
Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Whether EPA may employ 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d) to impose standards of performance on existing stationary sources that are regulated under the ''hazardous air pollutants" program of 42 U.S.C. § 7412. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d) clearly authorizes EPA to decide such matters of vast economic and political significance a...
20-1780
North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), governs air emissions from stationary sources of air pollutants. Section 11 l(d) explicitly requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to develop guidelines for the States to create their own Section lll(d) plans to establish "standards...
21-429
Oklahoma v. Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta
Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. 2. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled. GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. THE CASE WILL BE SET FOR ARGUMENT IN THE APRIL 2022 ARGUMENT SESSION.
20-603
Le Roy Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety
In the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), Congress gave the over 19 million military servicemembers—including over 800,000 who work for state and local government employers—a cause of action to remedy adverse employment actions taken because of their military service. It enac...
21-418
Joseph A. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection. 2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the...
20-1410
Xiulu Ruan v. United States
A physician otherwise authorized to prescribe controlled substances may be convicted of unlawful distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) if his prescriptions "fall outside the usual course of professional practice." United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 124 (1975). To ensure that physicians are not convicted for me...
21-5261
Shakeel Kahn v. United States
Does a “good faith” defense in the context of a licensed medical practitioner prosecuted under the Controlled Substances Act protect doctors who have an honest but mistaken belief that they have issued the charged prescription in “the usual course of professional practice;” and, if so, must that belief be objectivel...
20-1650
Carlos Concepcion v. United States
Whether, when deciding if it should ''impose a reduced sentence" on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, 21 U.S.C. § 841 note, a district court must or may consider intervening legal and factual developments.
19-1392
Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al.
Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. 2. Whether the validity of a pre-viability law that protects women's health, the dignity of unborn children, and the integrity of the medical profession and society should be analyzed under Casey's "undue burden" standard or Hellerste...
20-1312
Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Empire Health Foundation, for Valley Hospital Medical Center
The Medicare statute provides that a hospital that serves a "significantly disproportionate number of low-income patients" may receive an additional payment for treating Medicare patients, known as the disproportionate-share-hospital adjustment. 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(i)(I) and (ii). The statute directs the Secre...
21-439
Michael Nance v. Timothy C. Ward, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, et al.
Whether an inmate's as-applied method-of-execution challenge must be raised in a habeas petition instead of through a § 1983 action if the inmate pleads an alternative method of execution not currently authorized by state law. 2. Whether, if such a challenge must be raised in habeas, it constitutes a successive peti...
21-499
Carlos Vega v. Terence B. Tekoh
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), this Court announced a prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. That rule generally prohibits criminal trial courts from admitting into evidence against a criminal defendant any self-incriminating statement made by that defendant w...
21-248
Philip E. Berger, et al. v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.
Whether a state agent authorized by state law to defend the State's interest in litigation must overcome a presumption of adequate representation to intervene as of right in a case in which a state official is a defendant. 2. Whether a district court's determination of adequate representation in ruling on a motion t...
20-843
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Kevin P. Bruen, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.
For more than a decade since then, numerous courts of appeals have squarely divided on this critical question: whether the Second Amendment allows the government to deprive ordinary law-abiding citizens of the right to possess and carry a handgun outside the home. This circuit split is open and acknowledged, and it...
21-511
Tim Shoop, Warden v. Raymond A. Twyford, III
May federal courts evade this prohibition by using the All Writs Act to order the transportation of state prisoners for reasons not enumerated in §2241(c)? 2. Before a court grants an order allowing a habeas petitioner to develop new evidence, must it determine whether the evidence could aid the petitioner in provin...
21-404
United States v. Washington, et al.
Whether a state workers' compensation law that applies exclusively to federal contract workers who perform services at a specified federal facility is barred by principles of intergovernmental immunity, or is instead authorized by 40 U.S.C. 3172(a), which permits the application of state workers' compensation laws t...
20-1641
Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan, et al. v. DaVita Inc., et al.
Does a group health plan that provides uniform reimbursement of all dialysis treatments observe that prohibition? (2) Under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, a group health plan also may not "differentiate" between individuals with end stage renal disease and others "in the benefits it provides." Does a plan that pr...
20-1088
David Carson, as Parent and Next Friend of O. C., et al. v. A. Pender Makin
In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020), this Court held that a state may not exclude families and schools from participating in a student-aid program because of a school's religious status. This Court acknowledged, but did not resolve, the question of whether a state may nevertheless ex...
20-1459
United States v. Justin Eugene Taylor
Whether 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(A)'s definition of "crime of violence" excludes attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951(a).
21-234
Kevin R. George v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
In the veterans-benefits system, Congress has provided that an otherwise-final agency decision is subject to revision if that decision is based on “clear and unmistakable error.” Here, the Federal Circuit held that the agency’s application of a regulation that conflicts with the plain meaning of a statute cannot amo...
20-1573
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Angie Moriana
In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), this Court held that when parties agree to resolve their disputes by individualized arbitration, those agreements are fully enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Courts are not free to di...