Cases
10
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
10 cases, 0 opinions, 0 arguments.
10 grants and 0 decisions are currently attached to this term.
Cases
10
Granted
10
Decided
0
Opinions
0
Arguments
0
Recent opinions
Oral arguments
Cases
25-183
Thomas Crowther, et al. v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, et al.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits federally funded educational institutions from discriminating "on the basis of sex." In Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979), this Court held that Title IX is privately enforceable by "victims of discrimination" through an implied right of action...
25-966
Department of Labor, et al. v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC
The H-2A visa program grants U.S. employers the privilege of "import[ing]" foreign aliens into the United States for temporary agricultural work under special visas. 8 U.S.C. 1188(a)(1). As a condition of granting petitions to import foreign workers, federal law requires an employer to agree to comply with statutory...
25-5343
Kendrick Jarrell Beaird v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment? II. Whether Stinson v. United States still accurately state the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? III. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed s...
25-581
St. Mary Catholic Parish, Littleton, Colorado, et al. v. Lisa Roy, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, et al.
Whether proving a lack of general applicability under Employment Division v. Smith requires showing unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct. 2. Whether Carson v. Makin displaces the rule of Employment Division v. Smith only when the government explicitly excludes religious peopl...
25-735
Floyd D. Johnson v. United States Congress
Did the Veterans' Judicial Review Act strip district courts of the jurisdiction, recognized by this Court in Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974), to hear challenges to the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting veterans' benefits?
25-352
Jasmine Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, Georgia
Rule 8(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party "must" plead "any" affirmative defense. The question presented is: Where a defendant has filed an answer without pleading an affirmative defense, may the defendant nonetheless assert that affirmative defense as the basis for a summary judgmen...
25-579
Department of the Air Force, et al. v. Prutehi Guahan
Under RCRA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency may authorize state and territorial regulators to administer permitting programs for hazardous-waste-treatment facilities in their respective jurisdictions, including facilities operated by the federal government. The questions presented are as follows: 1...
25-170
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, et al.
Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate. IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER...
25-459
Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, dba 247Sports
The Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) contains a one-sentence liability clause. It prohibits a “video tape service provider” from “knowingly disclos[ing], to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1). The statute defines “consumer” broadly t...
25-498
Winston R. Anderson, et al. v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al.
Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a plan fiduciary is subject to a "[p]rudent man standard of care," which requires the fiduciary to "discharge his duties with respect to a plan" with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that a prudent person "acting in a like capacity and fami...