Cases
70
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
70 cases, 148 opinions, 59 arguments.
67 grants and 67 decisions are currently attached to this term.
Cases
70
Granted
67
Decided
67
Opinions
148
Arguments
59
Recent opinions
Opinion of the Court
Department of Education, et al. v. Myra Brown, et al.
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jun 30, 2023
Opinion of the Court
303 Creative LLC, et al. v. Aubrey Elenis, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 30, 2023
Dissent
303 Creative LLC, et al. v. Aubrey Elenis, et al.
By Sonia Sotomayor · Jun 30, 2023
Opinion of the Court
Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, et al. v. Nebraska, et al.
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 30, 2023
Dissent
Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, et al. v. Nebraska, et al.
By Elena Kagan · Jun 30, 2023
Concurrence
Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, et al. v. Nebraska, et al.
By Amy Coney Barrett · Jun 30, 2023
Concurrence
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
By Brett M. Kavanaugh · Jun 29, 2023
Concurrence
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 29, 2023
Opinion of the Court
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 29, 2023
Opinion of the Court
Abitron Austria GmbH, et al. v. Hetronic International, Inc.
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jun 29, 2023
Concurrence
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al.
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 29, 2023
Concurrence
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 29, 2023
Concurrence
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al.
By Brett M. Kavanaugh · Jun 29, 2023
Dissent
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al.
By Sonia Sotomayor · Jun 29, 2023
Dissent
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
By Sonia Sotomayor · Jun 29, 2023
Opinion of the Court
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al.
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 29, 2023
Opinion of the Court
Gerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jun 29, 2023
Concurrence
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 29, 2023
Dissent
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al.
By Ketanji Brown Jackson · Jun 29, 2023
Dissent
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
By Ketanji Brown Jackson · Jun 29, 2023
Opinion of the Court
Billy Raymond Counterman v. Colorado
By Elena Kagan · Jun 27, 2023
Concurrence
Timothy K. Moore, in His Official Capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Rebecca Harper, et al.
By Brett M. Kavanaugh · Jun 27, 2023
Opinion of the Court
Timothy K. Moore, in His Official Capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Rebecca Harper, et al.
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 27, 2023
Dissent
Timothy K. Moore, in His Official Capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Rebecca Harper, et al.
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 27, 2023
Oral arguments
April Session
Apr 26, 2023
Argued. For petitioner: Christina M. Martin, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. For United States, as amicus curiae: Erica L. Ross, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C
April Session
Apr 25, 2023
Argued. For petitioners: Vincent Levy, New York, N. Y. For Vitaly Ivanovich Smagin: Nicholas O. Kennedy, Dallas, Tex. VIDED.
April Session
Apr 24, 2023
Argued. For petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Amy M. Saharia, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 24, 2023
Argued. For petitioners: Pratik A. Shah, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Gregory G. Rapawy, Washington, D. C.; and Austin Raynor, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
April Session
Apr 19, 2023
Argued. For petitioner: John P. Elwood, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Denver, Colo.; and Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
April Session
Apr 18, 2023
Argued. For petitioners: Tejinder Singh, Washington, D. C.; and Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
Cases
21-1596
Kyle Ardoin, Louisiana Secretary of State, et al. v. Press Robinson, et al.
This case presents the exact question this Court will soon resolve: Whether Louisiana’s 2021 redistricting plan for its six seats in the United States House of Representatives violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U. S. C. §10301?
22-535
Department of Education, et al. v. Myra Brown, et al.
THE APPLICATION FOR STAY IS ALSO TREATED AS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT, AND THE PETITION IS GRANTED. THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: (1) WHETHER RESPONDENTS HAVE ARTICLE III STANDING; AND (2) WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT’S PLAN IS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED AND WAS...
22-506
Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, et al. v. Nebraska, et al.
(1) whether respondents have Article III standing, and (2) whether the plan exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious. EXPEDITED BRIEFING.
21-476
April Session
Apr 18, 2023
Argued. For petitioner: Aaron Streett, Houston, Tex. For respondent: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 17, 2023
Argued. For Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Jean Francois Pugin: Martha Hutton, Washington, D. C. For Fernando Cordero-Garcia: Mark C. Fleming, Boston, Mass. VIDED.
April Session
Apr 17, 2023
Argued. For petitioners: Thomas G. Hungar, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Kevin K. Russell, Washington, D. C.
March Session
Mar 29, 2023
Argued. For petitioner: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Caroline A. Flynn, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
March Session
Mar 29, 2023
Argued. For petitioners: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Ephraim McDowell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
March Session
Mar 28, 2023
Argued. For petitioner: Samir Deger-Sen, New York, N. Y. For respondent: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
March Session
Mar 28, 2023
Argued. For petitioner: Lawrence D. Rosenberg, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Erica L. Ross, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
March Session
Mar 27, 2023
Argued. For petitioner: Brian H. Fletcher, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Esha Bhandari, New York, N. Y.
March Session
Mar 27, 2023
Argued. For petitioners: Jeffrey A. Lamken, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.; and Colleen R. Sinzdak, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
March Session
Mar 22, 2023
Argued. For petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.; and Matthew Guarnieri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Bennett E. Cooper, Phoenix, Ariz.
303 Creative LLC, et al. v. Aubrey Elenis, et al.
Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent, contrary to the artist's sincerely held religious beliefs, violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. 2. Whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is g...
22-174
Gerald E. Groff v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General
Whether this Court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing Title. VII religious accommodations stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977). 2. Whether an employer may demonstrate "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business" under Title VII merely by sh...
21-1043
Abitron Austria GmbH, et al. v. Hetronic International, Inc.
Under the Tenth Circuit's view, the Lanham Act applies extraterritorially whenever foreign defendants' foreign conduct allegedly diverts foreign sales from a U.S. plaintiff. Such an effect, the court held, sufficiently affects U.S. commerce because it prevents foreign revenue from flowing into the U.S. economy. The...
20-1199
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions? 2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bans race-based admissions that, if done by a public university, would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Gratz v. Boll...
21-707
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al.
Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions? 2. Can a university reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would...
22-138
Billy Raymond Counterman v. Colorado
Whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat o...
21-1271
Timothy K. Moore, in His Official Capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives, et al. v. Rebecca Harper, et al.
Whether a State's judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the "Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives . . . prescribed . . . by the Legislature thereof," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 4, cl. 1, and replace them with regulations of the state courts' own devising, based on vague state const...
21-1168
Robert Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
''Nearly 80 years removed from International Shoe, it seems corporations continue to receive special jurisdictional protections in the name of the Constitution. Less clear is why." Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1038 (2021) (Gorsuch J., concurring). This petition seeks resolution o...
22-196
Adam Samia, aka Sal, aka Adam Samic v. United States
Whether admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
22-179
United States v. Helaman Hansen
Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.
22-105
Coinbase, Inc. v. Abraham Bielski
Under§ 16(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act, when a district court denies a motion to compel arbitration, the party seeking arbitration may file an immediate interlocutory appeal. This Court has held that an appeal "divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Gri...
22-58
United States, et al. v. Texas, et al.
Whether the state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; 2. Whether the Guidelines are contrary to 8 U.S.C. §1226(c) or 8 U.S.C. §1231(a), or otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act; and 3. Whether 8...
22-381
Ashot Yegiazaryan, aka Ashot Egiazaryan v. Vitaly Ivanovich Smagin, et al.
In RJR Nabisco, this Court, applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, held that a civil RICO plaintiff states a cognizable claim under RICO's private right of action only if it alleges a "domestic"-not foreign-injury. 579 U.S. 325, 354 (2016). The Court left unresolved, however, what legal test determine...
22-383
CMB Monaco, fka Compagnie Monegasque de Banque v. Vitaly Ivanovich Smagin, et al.
In RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U.S. 325 (2016), this Court held that a plaintiff proceeding under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., must plead and prove a "domestic" injury to maintain a claim in U.S. court. Following RJR Nabisco, the courts o...
22-23
Jean Francois Pugin v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a noncitizen who is convicted of an "aggravated felony" is subject to mandatory removal and faces enhanced criminal liability in certain circumstances. One aggravated felony is "an offense relating to obstruction of justice." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). The questions p...
22-331
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General v. Fernando Cordero-Garcia, aka Fernando Cordero
Whether dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, in violation of California law, is "an offense relating to obstruction of justice," 8 U.S.C. 110l(a)(43)(S). THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI ARE GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: TO QUALIFY AS “AN OFFENSE RELATING TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE,” 8 U.S.C...
21-1484
Arizona, et al. v. Navajo Nation, et al.
Does the Ninth Circuit Opinion, allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation's water needs and manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to interfere with that plan, infringe upon this Court's retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of wat...
22-51
Department of the Interior, et al. v. Navajo Nation, et al.
Whether the federal government owes the Navajo Nation an affirmative, judicially enforceable fiduciary duty to assess and address the Navajo Nation's need for water from particular sources, in the absence of any substantive source of law that expressly establishes such a duty. CONSOLIDATED WITH 21-1484 FOR ONE HOUR...
21-857
Marcus Deangelo Jones v. Dewayne Hendrix, Warden
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, federal inmates can collaterally challenge their convictions on any ground cognizable on collateral review, with successive attacks limited to certain claims that indicate factual innocence or that rely on constitutional-law decisions made retroactive by this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). 28 U....
22-592
Arizona, et al. v. Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.
The parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether the State applicants may intervene to challenge the District Court’s summary judgment order. EXPEDITED BRIEFING.
22-49
Efrain Lora v. United States
under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment," is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j).