Volume 579 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 579 of the United States Reports: Note: As of December 2025, final bound volumes for the U.S. Supreme Court's United States Reports have been published through volume 585 (June 2018). Newer cases from subsequent future volumes do not yet have official page numbers and typically use three underscores in place of the page number; e.g., Example v. United States, 700 U.S. ___ (2050).

Petitioner Rocky Dietz sued respondent Hillary Bouldin for negligence for injuries suffered in an automobile accident. Bouldin removed the case to Federal District Court. Held: A federal district court has a limited inherent power to rescind a jury discharge order and recall a jury in a civil case for further delibera- tions after identifying an error in the jury's verdict. The District Court did not abuse that power here. Pp. 45–54.

Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. 59 (2016), is a criminal case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States, which considered whether Puerto Rico and the federal government of the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.

Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, 579 U.S. 115 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Chapters 9 and 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code preempt the corresponding sections of the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act because states may not enact municipal bankruptcy laws, and the territory Puerto Rico is usually included in the definition of a "state" within the Federal Bankruptcy Code.

United States v. Bryant, 579 U.S. 140 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that tribal-court convictions from proceedings that complied with Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 may be used as predicate offenses in subsequent prosecution.

The Veterans Benefts, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to set annual goals for contracting with service-disabled and other… Held: This Court has jurisdiction to reach the merits of this case. For a federal court to have Article III jurisdiction “an actual controversy Cite as: 579 U. S. 162 (2016) 163 Syllabus must exist . . . through all stages of the litigation.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U. S. 85, 90–91.

Yarushka Rivera, a teenage benefciary of Massachusetts' Medicaid pro- gram, received counseling services for several years at Arbour… Held: The implied false certifcation theory can be a basis for FCA liabil- ity when a defendant submitting a claim makes specifc representations about the goods or services provided, but fails to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements that make those representations misleading with respect…

Held: is yes-the court should. But the court must also give due consideration to all other circumstances relevant to granting fees; and it retains discretion, in light of those factors, to make an award even when the losing party advanced a reasonable claim or defense.

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a Supreme Court of the United States case addressing overtime pay. Specifically at issue is whether automotive service advisors are eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act creates an agency procedure called “inter partes review” that allows a third party to ask the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office to reexamine the claims in an… Held: Section 314(d) bars Cuozzo’s challenge to the Patent Office’s de- cision to institute inter partes review. Pp. 7–12.

Taylor v. United States, 579 U.S. 301 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, the government is not required to prove an interstate commerce element beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court relied on its decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), which held that Congress has the authority to regulate the marijuana market given that even local activities can have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) pro- hibits certain activities of organized crime groups in relation to an enterprise. Held: The law of extraterritoriality provides guidance in determining RICO’s reach to events outside the United States.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), also known as Fisher II (to distinguish it from the 2013 case), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy. The decision was overturned by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) seven years later.

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the search incident to arrest doctrine permits law enforcement to conduct warrantless breath tests but not blood tests on suspected drunk drivers.

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on a defendant convicted of being a felon in posses- sion of a frearm who also has three prior state or federal… Held: the District Court's treatment of Mathis's prior convictions as ACCA predicates was proper. Held: Because the elements of Iowa's burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary, Mathis's prior convictions cannot give rise to ACCA's sentence enhancement. Pp. 509–520.

Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 579 U.S. 545 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court was asked to determine if an American Indian tribal court had the jurisdiction to hear a civil case involving a non-Indian who operated a Dollar General store on tribal land under a consensual relationship with the tribe. The Court was equally divided, 4–4, and thereby affirmed the decision of the lower court, in this case the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that the court had jurisdiction.

United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. 547 (2016), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.

McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the appeal of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell's conviction for honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion. At issue on appeal was whether the definition of "official act" within the federal bribery statutes encompassed the actions for which McDonnell had been convicted and whether the jury had been properly instructed on this definition at trial.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court announced on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had enjoined the enforcement of similar laws.

Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. 686 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban in U.S. federal law extends to those convicted of reckless domestic violence. The court reached its judgment in a 6–2 majority.