Cases
71
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
71 cases, 120 opinions, 61 arguments.
68 grants and 71 decisions are currently attached to this term.
Cases
71
Granted
68
Decided
71
Opinions
120
Arguments
61
Recent opinions
Dissent
Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, et al. v. Consumers' Research, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 27, 2025
Opinion of the Court
Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, et al. v. Consumers' Research, et al.
By Elena Kagan · Jun 27, 2025
Opinion of the Court
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al.
By Amy Coney Barrett · Jun 27, 2025
Dissent
Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Consumers' Research, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 27, 2025
Dissent
Free Speech Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
By Elena Kagan · Jun 27, 2025
Dissent
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Braidwood Management, Inc., et al.
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 27, 2025
Opinion of the Court
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Braidwood Management, Inc., et al.
By Brett M. Kavanaugh · Jun 27, 2025
Opinion of the Court
Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Consumers' Research, et al.
By Elena Kagan · Jun 27, 2025
Opinion of the Court
Tamer Mahmoud, et al. v. Thomas W. Taylor, et al.
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jun 27, 2025
Opinion of the Court
Free Speech Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 27, 2025
Concurrence
Tamer Mahmoud, et al. v. Thomas W. Taylor, et al.
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 27, 2025
Dissent
Tamer Mahmoud, et al. v. Thomas W. Taylor, et al.
By Sonia Sotomayor · Jun 27, 2025
Concurrence in part
Ruben Gutierrez v. Luis Saenz, et al.
By Amy Coney Barrett · Jun 26, 2025
Dissent
Eunice Medina, Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al.
By Ketanji Brown Jackson · Jun 26, 2025
Concurrence
Eunice Medina, Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al.
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 26, 2025
Opinion of the Court
Corey Deyon Duffey and Jarvis Dupree Ross v. United States
By Ketanji Brown Jackson · Jun 26, 2025
Opinion of the Court
Tony R. Hewitt v. United States
By Ketanji Brown Jackson · Jun 26, 2025
Opinion of the Court
Pierre Yassue Nashun Riley v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jun 26, 2025
Dissent
Corey Deyon Duffey and Jarvis Dupree Ross v. United States
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jun 26, 2025
Dissent
Ruben Gutierrez v. Luis Saenz, et al.
By Clarence Thomas · Jun 26, 2025
Dissent
Tony R. Hewitt v. United States
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jun 26, 2025
Dissent
Ruben Gutierrez v. Luis Saenz, et al.
By Samuel A. Alito, Jr. · Jun 26, 2025
Opinion of the Court
Eunice Medina, Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al.
By Neil M. Gorsuch · Jun 26, 2025
Opinion of the Court
Ruben Gutierrez v. Luis Saenz, et al.
By Sonia Sotomayor · Jun 26, 2025
Oral arguments
May Session
May 15, 2025
Argued. For applicants: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For state and city respondents: Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, Solicitor General, Trenton, N. J. For private respondents: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
April Session
Apr 30, 2025
Argued. For petitioners in 24-394: James A. Campbell, Lansdowne, Va. For petitioner in 24-396: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
April Session
Apr 29, 2025
Argued. For petitioners: Patrick M. Jaicomo, Arlington, Va. For respondents: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below on Question 1: Christopher E. Mills, Charleston, S. C.
April Session
Apr 29, 2025
Argued. For petitioner: Noel J. Francisco, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Deepak Gupta, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 28, 2025
Argued. For petitioner: Roman Martinez, Washington, D. C.; and Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.
Cases
24A884
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. CASA, Inc., et al.
decided
24A885
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Washington, et al.
decided
24A886
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. New Jersey, et al.
decided
24-297
Tamer Mahmoud, et al. v. Thomas W. Taylor, et al.
Respondent Montgomery County Board of Education requires elementary school teachers to read their students storybooks celebrating gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance. The storybooks were chosen to disrupt "cisnormativity" and "either/or thinking" among students. The Board's own princip...
April Session
Apr 28, 2025
Argued. For petitioner: Tacy F. Flint, Chicago, Ill. For respondent: Caroline A. Flynn, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 23, 2025
Argued. For petitioners: Jeffrey B. Wall, Washington, D. C. For federal respondents: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For state respondents: Joshua A. Klein, Deputy Solicitor General, Oakland, Cal.
April Session
Apr 22, 2025
Argued. For petitioner: Erica L. Ross, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 22, 2025
Argued. For petitioners: Eric S. Baxter, Washington, D. C.; and Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Alan E. Schoenfeld, New York, N. Y.
April Session
Apr 21, 2025
Argued. For petitioner: Amanda Rice, Detroit, Mich. For respondent in support of petitioner: Aimee Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below: Michael R. Huston, Phoenix, Ariz.
April Session
Apr 21, 2025
Argued. For petitioners: Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Jonathan F. Mitchell, Austin, Tex.
April Session
Apr 2, 2025
Argued. For petitioner: John J. Bursch, Washington, D. C.; and Kyle D. Hawkins, Counselor to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Nicole A. Saharsky, Washington, D. C.
April Session
Apr 1, 2025
Argued. For petitioners in 24-20: Kent A. Yalowitz, New York, N. Y. For petitioner in 24-151: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Mitchell R. Berger, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
March Session
Mar 31, 2025
Argued. For petitioner: Peter A. Bruland, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.; and Matthew Guarnieri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
March Session
Mar 31, 2025
Argued. For petitioners: Eric C. Rassbach, Washington, D. C.; and Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Colin T. Roth, Assistant Attorney General, Madison, Wis.
March Session
Mar 26, 2025
Argued. For petitioners in 24-354: Sarah M. Harris, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioners in 24-422: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va. For respondents: R. Trent McCotter, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
24-316
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Braidwood Management, Inc., et al.
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111 -148, 124 Stat. 119, health insurance issuers and group health plans must cover certain preventive services recommended by the Task Force without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on patients. 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13(a)(1). The question presented...
24-354
Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Consumers' Research, et al.
Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in Section 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Fund. 2. Whether the Commission violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the Administrator's financial projections in compu...
24-422
Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition, et al. v. Consumers' Research, et al.
Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in Section 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Fund. 2. Whether the Commission violated the nondelegation doctrine by using USAC's financial projections in computing universa...
23-1122
Free Speech Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circu...
23-1275
Eunice Medina, Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al.
Whether the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. 2. What is the scope of a Medicaid beneficiary's alleged right to choose a provider that a state has deemed disqualified?
23-1270
Pierre Yassue Nashun Riley v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General
Whether 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited. 2. Whether a person can obtain review of the BIA's decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that BIA decision?
23-1002
Tony R. Hewitt v. United States
The First Step Act (FSA) significantly reduced the mandatory minimum sentences for several federal drug and firearm offenses. First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, §§ 401, 403, 132 Stat. 5194, 5220-5222. Sections 401 and 403 apply to offenses committed after the FSA's enactment on December 21, 2018, and to "a...
23-1150
Corey Deyon Duffey and Jarvis Dupree Ross v. United States
The question presented here is the same as that presented in Hewitt v. United States, No. 23-1002: Whether the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the First Step Act's enactment when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resent...
23-7809
Ruben Gutierrez v. Luis Saenz, et al.
In Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230, 234 (2023), this Court held that Rodney Reed has standing to pursue a declaratory judgment that Texas's post-conviction DNA statute was unconstitutional because ''Reed suffered an injury in fact," the named defendant "caused Reed's injury," and if a federal court concludes that Texas...
24-7
Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. 2. Whether EPA's preemption waiver for California's greenhouse-gas emission standards and zero-emission- vehicle mandate is unlawful. THE PETITION FOR...
24-151
United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
In the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (PSJVTA), Pub. L. No. 116-94, Div. J, Tit. IX,§ 903, 133 Stat. 3082, Congress provided that the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority "shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction" in certain terrorism-...
24-20
Miriam Fuld, et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.
Under the PSJVTA, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) "shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction" in an ATA action if: (a) more than 120 days after the statute's enactment, they pay any terrorist convicted of or killed while committing a terror attack against...
23-7483
Edgardo Esteras v. United States
Even though Congress excluded section 3553(a)(2)(A) from section 3583(e)'s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, may a district court rely on the section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release?
23-1187
Food and Drug Administration, et al. v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., et al.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, Div. A, 123 Stat. 1776, requires a person to obtain authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before introducing a new tobacco product into interstate commerce. If FDA denies an application for authorization, "any person adver...
23-1226
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the FCC's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
23-997
Karyn D. Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee-who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed-lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?
23-1067
Oklahoma, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Under the Clean Air Act, each state must adopt an implementation plan to meet national standards, which EPA then reviews for compliance with the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410. In 2023, EPA published disapprovals of 21 states' plans implementing national ozone standards. It did so in a single Federal Register notice. The...
23-1068
PacifiCorp, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.
Whether the Environmental Protection Agency's disapproval of a State Implementation Plan may only be challenged in the D.C. Circuit under 42 U.S.C. § 7607 (b)(1) if EPA packages that disapproval with disapprovals of other States' SIPs and purports to use a consistent method in evaluating the state-specific determina...
23-1229
Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., et al.
In a pair of final actions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied 105 petitions filed by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program. Six of those refineries petitioned for review of EPA's decisions in the Fifth Circuit...
23-1300
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, et al. v. Texas, et al.
Whether the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2341 et seq., which authorizes a "party aggrieved" by an agency's "final order" to petition for review in a court of appeals, 28 U.S.C. 2344, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency's statutory authority. 2. Whether the Atomic En...