597 U.S.
Volume 597 — United States Reports
13 opinions
- 597 U.S. 1New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), abbreviated NYSRPA v. Bruen and also known as Bruen or NYSRPA II (to distinguish it from the 2020 case), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court related to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of the 1911 Sullivan Act, a New York State law requiring applicants for a pistol concealed carry license to show "proper cause", or a special need distinguishable from that of the general public, in their application. In a 6–3 decision issued in June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that New York's law was unconstitutional and that the ability to bear arms in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
- 597 U.S. 134Vega v. Tekoh (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. 134 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 6–3, that an officer's failure to read Miranda warnings to a suspect in custody does not alone provide basis for a claim of civil liability under Section 1983 of United States Code. In the case, the Court reviewed its previous holding of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) to determine whether respondent Carlos Vega violated plaintiff Terence Tekoh's constitutional rights by failing to read Tekoh his Miranda rights prior to interrogation. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six-justice majority that Tekoh's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated, as Miranda rights are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution."
- 597 U.S. 159Nance v. Ward (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 159 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to death row inmates' as-applied challenges to methods of execution.
- 597 U.S. 179Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
- 597 U.S. 215Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)Altered precedentSupreme Court of the United States
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that the United States Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The court's decision overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), devolving to state governments the authority to regulate any aspect of abortion that federal law does not preempt.
- 597 U.S. 424Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, For Valley Hospital Medical Center (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, For Valley Hospital Medical Center, 597 U.S. 424 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified which patients hospitals are allowed to be reimbursed by Medicare for treating, and at what rate. In a 5–4 opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court held that "in calculating the Medicare fraction, individuals "entitled to [Medicare Part A] benefits" are all those qualifying for the program, regardless of whether they receive Medicare payments for part or all of a hospital stay."
- 597 U.S. 450Xiulu Ruan v. United States (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450 (2022), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.
- 597 U.S. 481Concepcion v. United States (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2022), is a United States Supreme Court decision that concerns district courts' ability to consider changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence.
- 597 U.S. 507Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
- 597 U.S. 580Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 597 U.S. 580 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and state sovereign immunity. In a 5–4 decision issued in June 2022, the Court ruled that state sovereign immunity does not prevent states from being sued under federal law related to the nation's defense.
- 597 U.S. 629Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to McGirt v. Oklahoma, decided in 2020. In McGirt, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Congress never properly disestablished the Indian reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma when granting its statehood, and thus almost half the state was still considered to be Native American land. As a result of McGirt, crimes under the Major Crimes Act by Native Americans in the reservations are treated as federal crimes rather than state crimes. In the wake of McGirt, the Oklahoma state courts started vacating past criminal cases to turn them over to federal courts.
- 597 U.S. 697West Virginia v. EPA (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the Clean Air Act, and the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change.
- 597 U.S. 785Biden v. Texas (2022)Supreme Court of the United States
In Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785 (2022), Texas and Missouri attempted to sue the Biden administration for terminating the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), commonly known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration legally possessed the authority to terminate the policy. By reversing lower court rulings, the Court affirmed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) acted within its legal discretion in ending the program.