Volume 585 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 585 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).

Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals, 585 U.S. 33 (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States involving the interpretation of foreign law in US domestic courts. The case arose out of a controversy in which Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals (Hebei), a company incorporated under Chinese law, and its parent company North China Pharmaceutical Group was accused of price fixing in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act by Animal Science Products (ASP), which filed a class action against Hebei. Before the district court, Hebei claimed that Chinese law required them to price-fix, and this claim was supported by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce in written submissions to the court.

Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. 48 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering. Other forms of gerrymandering based on racial or ethnic grounds had been deemed unconstitutional, and while the Supreme Court had identified that extreme partisan gerrymandering could also be unconstitutional, the Court had not agreed on how this could be defined, leaving the question to lower courts to decide. That issue was later resolved in Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the Court decided that partisan gerrymanders presented a nonjusticiable political question.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87 (2018), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the mere existence of probable cause for an arrest did not bar the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but deferred consideration of the broader question of when it might. The case concerned a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit filed against Riviera Beach by Fane Lozman, who had been arrested while criticizing local politicians during the public comments section of a City Council meeting. The city argued that under Hartman v. Moore he could not sue for retaliation, as they had probable cause to arrest him for the offense of disturbing a lawful assembly.

Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when the record as a whole demonstrates the judge had a reasoned basis for his decision, the judge's use of generic boilerplate to explain their choice of a sentence reduction under the Guidelines is adequate.

Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a miscalculation of a Guidelines sentencing range that has been determined to be plain and to affect a defendant's substantial rights calls for a court of appeals to exercise its discretion to vacate the defendant's sentence in the ordinary case.

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U.S. 162 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case that held by a 5–4 majority that states may charge tax on purchases made from out-of-state sellers even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the taxing state. The decision overturned Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992), which had held that the Dormant Commerce Clause barred states from compelling retailers to collect sales or use taxes in connection with mail order or Internet sales made to their residents unless those retailers have a physical presence in the taxing state.

Affirmed, United States v. Carpenter, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016).

WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 585 U.S. 407 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that awarding lost profits over patent-infringing goods assembled outside of the United States with components manufactured in the United States was a permissible domestic application of Section 284 of the Patent Act.

Ortiz v. United States, 585 U.S. 427 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the nature of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) in relationship to Article III Courts. The Court determined that it had jurisdiction to rule on appeals from the USCAAF, even though that court was created by Congress via Article I of the United States Constitution and is not an Article III court. The case was centered on the United States Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. The Court declared the Appointments Clause does not impose a prohibition on an officer of the United States from serving in two roles simultaneously. Rather, the clause only concerns itself with the method of appointment.

Currier v. Virginia, 585 U.S. 493 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that if a criminal defendant consents to sever their case into multiple trials, they waive issue preclusion in the subsequent trials. Thus, the government may relitigate their allegations in the subsequent trial even if the defendant was acquitted in the first, and the second trial does not violate double jeopardy.

Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. 529 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the nature of antitrust law in relationship to two-sided markets. The case specifically involves policies set by some credit card banks that prevented merchants from steering customers to use cards from other issuers with lower transaction fees, forcing merchants to pay higher transaction fees to the banks. While Visa and MasterCard settled with the United States Department of Justice in 2010, American Express defended its practice by arguing that the anti-steering policies benefited its cardholders, the higher transaction fees helping to maintain member services.

Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. 579 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the redistricting of the state of Texas following the 2010 census. The court held that the Texas court erred in requiring the state to show that the 2013 Legislature purged the "taint" that the court attributed to the defunct and never-used plans enacted by a prior legislature in 2011.

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by Islamophobic animus. A U.S.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech.

Florida v. Georgia, 585 U.S. 803 (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in an original jurisdiction case. It involves a long-running dispute over waters within the ACF River Basin, running from the north Georgia mountains through metro Atlanta to the Florida panhandle, which is managed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Waters in the area have been stressed by the population growth of Atlanta over previous decades. The immediate case stemmed from droughts in 2011 and 2012 that caused economic damage to Florida due to lower water flows from the ACF River Basin into the panhandle, impacting its seafood production; Florida sought relief to have more water allocated towards them from the ACF by placing a water allocation cap on Georgia.

2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled.