Volume 595 — United States Reports

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2021 term, which began October 4, 2021 and concluded October 2, 2022.

Mississippi v. Tennessee, 595 U.S. 15 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the waters of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer are subject to the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment.

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by Texas abortion providers and abortion rights advocates that challenged the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act, a law that outlaws abortions after six weeks. The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits state officials from enforcing the ban but authorizes private individuals to enforce the law by suing anyone who performs, aids, or abets an abortion after six weeks. The law was structured this way to evade pre-enforcement judicial review because lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state statutes are typically brought against state officials who are charged with enforcing the law, as the state itself cannot be sued under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

United States v. Texas, 595 U.S. 74 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that involved the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8 or SB8, a state law that bans abortion once a "fetal heartbeat" is detected, typically six weeks into pregnancy. A unique feature of the Act, and challenges to it, is the delegation of enforcement to any and all private individuals who are authorized by the Act to file civil actions against abortion providers who violate it, and aiders and abetters, while state and local officials are prohibited from doing so. Opponents stated that the Act went against the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v.

Babcock v. Kijakazi, 595 U.S. 77 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that civil-service pension payments based on employment as a dual-status military technician are not payments based on "service as a member of a uniformed service" under 42 U.S.C. § 415(1)(7)(A)(III).

National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 595 U.S. 109 (2022), is a Supreme Court of the United States case before the Court on an application for a stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's COVID-19 vaccination or test mandate. On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court ordered a stay of the mandate.

Hemphill v. New York, 595 U.S. 140 (2022), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In its decision, the Court ruled on when a criminal defendant who opens the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence also opens the door to evidence that would otherwise be excluded by the Confrontation Clause.

Hughes v. Northwestern University, 595 U.S. 170 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Seventh Circuit erred in relying on the participants' ultimate choice over their investments to excuse allegedly imprudent decisions by respondents. Determining whether petitioners state plausible claims against plan fiduciaries for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974's duty of prudence requires a context-specific inquiry of the fiduciaries’ continuing duty to monitor investments and to remove imprudent ones.

Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., 595 U.S. 178 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a lack of either factual or legal knowledge can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration.

United States v. Zubaydah, 595 U.S. 195 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the state secrets privilege. Abu Zubaydah, an alleged Al Qaeda operative, was tortured by two Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contractors in a black site in Poland. He sought testimony from these contractors in 2017, but the federal government blocked the request, arguing that any information about the black sites was classified. In a 7–2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled against Zubaydah.

Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C., 595 U.S. 267 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of state officials to intervene to defend the constitutionality of state laws.

United States v. Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. 302 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held (6-3) that a defendant is entitled to an impartial panel of jurors, not necessarily a panel of jurors who know nothing about the case. The decision reinstated Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's death sentence for his role in the Boston Marathon bombing.

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, 595 U.S. 344 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the use of law enforcement surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) and the state secrets privilege defense. The case stems from a 2011 class action lawsuit filed against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) related to one of its surveillance operations. In August 2012, the district court dismissed the case on the basis of the FBI's invocation of state secrets privilege. The Ninth Circuit overturned this ruling in part in 2019, ruling that FISA precluded the defendants from invoking the state secrets defense.

Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022), was a Supreme Court of the United States case dealing with the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that multiple criminal offenses that a person commits during a single criminal episode do not count as separate convictions when considering the number of prior convictions a criminal has under the ACCA.

Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. 411 (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U.S. 468 (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The unanimous Court held that a local government board member's freedom of speech was not abridged when he was verbally censured by his colleagues.