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, 115 opinions, 61 arguments.
67 grants and 69 decisions are currently attached to this term.
Cases
70
Granted
67
Decided
69
Opinions
115
Arguments
61
Recent opinions
Opinion of the Court
Donald J. Trump v. United States
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jul 1, 2024
Opinion of the Court
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
By Amy Coney Barrett · Jul 1, 2024
Opinion of the Court
Ashley Moody, Attorney General of Florida, et al. v. NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al.
By Elena Kagan · Jul 1, 2024
Dissent
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
By Ketanji Brown Jackson · Jul 1, 2024
Concurrence
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
By Brett M. Kavanaugh · Jul 1, 2024
Opinion of the Court
Joseph W. Fischer v. United States
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 28, 2024
Opinion of the Court
Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 28, 2024
Opinion of the Court
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 28, 2024
Concurrence
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 28, 2024
Dissent
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated
By Sonia Sotomayor · Jun 28, 2024
Per curiam
Mike Moyle, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, et al. v. United States
Unsigned opinion · Jun 27, 2024
Dissent
William K. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
By Brett M. Kavanaugh · Jun 27, 2024
Opinion of the Court
Securities and Exchange Commission v. George R. Jarkesy, Jr., et al.
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 27, 2024
Opinion of the Court
Ohio, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 27, 2024
Opinion of the Court
William K. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 27, 2024
Opinion of the Court
Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. v. Missouri, et al.
By Amy Coney Barrett · Jun 26, 2024
Dissent
James E. Snyder v. United States
By Ketanji Brown Jackson · Jun 26, 2024
Concurrence
James E. Snyder v. United States
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 26, 2024
Dissent
Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. v. Missouri, et al.
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jun 26, 2024
Opinion of the Court
James E. Snyder v. United States
By Brett M. Kavanaugh · Jun 26, 2024
Opinion of the Court
United States v. Zackey Rahimi
By John G. Roberts, Jr. · Jun 21, 2024
Dissent
United States v. Zackey Rahimi
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 21, 2024
Concurrence
United States v. Zackey Rahimi
By Sonia Sotomayor · Jun 21, 2024
Opinion of the Court
Jason Smith v. Arizona
By Elena Kagan · Jun 21, 2024
Oral arguments
April Session
Apr 25, 2024
Argued. For petitioner: D. John Sauer, St. Louis, Mo. For respondent: Michael R. Dreeben, Counselor to the Special Counsel, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 24, 2024
Argued. For petitioners: Joshua N. Turner, Chief of Constitutional Litigation and Policy, Boise, Idaho. For respondent: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
April Session
Apr 23, 2024
Argued. For petitioners: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Eric T. Lee, Southfeld, Mich.
April Session
Apr 23, 2024
Argued. For petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Austin Raynor, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 22, 2024
Argued. For petitioner: Theane D. Evangelis, Los Angeles, Cal. For United States, as amicus curiae: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 22, 2024
Argued. For petitioners: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex. For respondents: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N. Y.
Cases
23-939
Donald J. Trump v. United States
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REQUEST TO TREAT THE STAY APPLICATION AS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, AND THAT PETITION IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE...
22-277
Ashley Moody, Attorney General of Florida, et al. v. NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al.
Whether the First Amendment prohibits a State from requiring that social-media companies host third-party communications, and from regulating the time, place, and manner in which they do so. 2. Whether the First Amendment prohibits a State from requiring social-media companies to notify and provide an explanation to...
22-555
NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al. v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment. 2. Whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.
22-1008
April Session
Apr 17, 2024
Argued. For petitioner: Jason D. Lewis, Deputy Solicitor General, Phoenix, Ariz. For respondent: Jean-Claude Andre, Santa Monica, Cal.
April Session
Apr 16, 2024
Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey T. Green, Bethesda, Md. For respondent: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 15, 2024
Argued. For petitioners: Easha Anand, Stanford, Cal. For United States, as amicus curiae: Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Megan M. Wold, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 15, 2024
Argued. For petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Colleen R. Sinzdak, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C
March Session
Mar 27, 2024
Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Menlo Park, Cal. For respondent supporting petitioner: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below: D. Nick Harper, Washington, D. C.
March Session
Mar 27, 2024
Argued. For petitioner: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Yaira Dubin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C
March Session
Mar 26, 2024
Argued. For federal petitioners: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioner Danco Laboratories, L.L.C.: Jessica L. Ellsworth, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Erin M. Hawley, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
March Session
Mar 25, 2024
Argued. For petitioner: Joshua P. Davis, San Francisco, Cal. For respondent: Aimee W. Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
March Session
Mar 25, 2024
Argued. For petitioners: Caroline A. Flynn, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 23-253: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 23-250: Lloyd B. Miller, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
March Session
Mar 20, 2024
Argued. For petitioner: Anya A. Bidwell, Arlington, Va. For United States, as amicus curiae: Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
is a convenience store and truck stop in North Dakota that first opened for business in 2018. In 2021, Corner Post sued the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging a Board rule adopted in 2011 that governs certain fees for debit-card transactions. The Eigh...
23-175
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated
In Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prevents cities from enforcing criminal restrictions on public camping unless the person has "access to adequate temporary shelter." Id. at 617 & n.8. In this case, the Ninth Circuit extende...
23-5572
Joseph W. Fischer v. United States
Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering"). Which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations. to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?
22-1219
Relentless, Inc., et al. v. Department of Commerce, et al.
Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. 1. 2. Whether the phrase "necessary and appropriate" in the MSA augments age...
22-451
Loper Bright Enterprises, et al. v. Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al.
Under well-established principles of statutory construction, the answer would appear to be no, as the express grant of such a controversial power in limited circumstances forecloses a broad implied grant that would render the express grant superfluous. But a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit answered yes under Chevr...
23-726
Mike Moyle, Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, et al. v. United States
WHETHER EMTALA PREEMPTS STATE LAWS THAT PROTECT HUMAN LIFE AND PROHIBIT ABORTIONS, LIKE IDAHO’S DEFENSE OF LIFE ACT. ORDER OF JANUARY 5, 2024 THE APPLICATIONS FOR STAY PRESENTED TO JUSTICE KAGAN AND BY HER REFERRED TO THE COURT ARE GRANTED. THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED ON AUGUST 24, 2022, BY THE UNITED STATES D...
23-727
Idaho v. United States
WHETHER EMTALA PREEMPTS STATE LAWS THAT PROTECT HUMAN LIFE AND PROHIBIT ABORTIONS, LIKE IDAHO’S DEFENSE OF LIFE ACT. ORDER OF JANUARY 5, 2024 THE APPLICATIONS FOR STAY PRESENTED TO JUSTICE KAGAN AND BY HER REFERRED TO THE COURT ARE GRANTED. THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ISSUED ON AUGUST 24, 2022, BY THE UNITED STATES D...
23A349
Ohio, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
decided
23A350
Kinder Morgan, Inc., et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
decided
23A351
American Forest & Paper Association, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
decided
23A384
United States Steel Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
decided
23-124
William K. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.
22-859
Securities and Exchange Commission v. George R. Jarkesy, Jr., et al.
Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment. 2. Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an ag...
23-108
James E. Snyder v. United States
18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) makes it a federal crime for a state or local official to "corruptly solicit[,] demand[,] ... or accept[] ... anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any" government business "involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more." The question p...
23-411
Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. v. Missouri, et al.
the government respectfully suggests the following questions presented: (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) Whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (...
23-334
Department of State, et al. v. Sandra Muñoz, et al.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., the decision to grant or deny a visa application rests with a consular officer in the Department of State. Under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), any noncitizen whom a consular officer "knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the U...
23-370
Paul Erlinger v. United States
Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant's prior convictions were "committed on occasions different from one another," as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). ORDER OF NOVEMBER 21, 20...
22-899
Jason Smith v. Arizona
Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst's sta...
22-915
United States v. Zackey Rahimi
Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
23-50
Jascha Chiaverini, et al. v. City of Napoleon, Ohio, et al.
Under the charge-specific rule, a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge, even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause. Under the "any-crime" rule, probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims as...
22-1025
Sylvia Gonzalez v. Edward Trevino, II, et al.
Whether the Nieves probable cause exception can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened. 2. Whether the Nieves probable cause rule is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.