Volume 601 — United States Reports

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, 601 U.S. 1 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding standing to sue under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. 23 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the standard for bringing a whistleblower retaliation claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, 601 U.S. 42 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waives the sovereign immunity of the United States.

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, 601 U.S. 65 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding federal admiralty law.

McElrath v. Georgia, 601 U.S. 87 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes notwithstanding any inconsistency with the jury's other verdicts.

Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that states could not determine eligibility for federal office, including the presidency, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court had rejected then-former president Donald Trump's presidential eligibility on the basis of his actions during the January 6 Capitol attack, adhering to the Fourteenth Amendment disqualification theory. The case was known as Anderson v. Griswold in the Colorado state courts.

After pleading guilty to distributing at least 50 grams of methampheta- mine, petitioner Mark Pulsifer faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 15… Held: A defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence is eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U. S. C. §3553 (f)(1) only if he satisfies each 2 PULSIFER v. UNITED STATES Syllabus of the provision’s three conditions—or said more specifically, only if he does not have more than four criminal-history points, does not have a prior…

Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2nd Cir. 2019), was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the use of social media as a public forum. The plaintiffs, Philip N. Cohen, Eugene Gu, Holly Figueroa O'Reilly, Nicholas Pappas, Joseph M. Papp, Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza, and Brandon Neely, were a group of Twitter users blocked by then-U.S. President Donald Trump's personal @realDonaldTrump account. They alleged that Twitter constitutes a public forum, and that a government official blocking access to that forum violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit also named as defendants White House press secretary Sean Spicer and social media director Dan Scavino.

has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions Page Proof Pending Publication for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant punctuation.

Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that federal courts have the jurisdiction to review the determinations of immigration judges as a mixed question of law.

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre, 601 U.S. 234 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a complaint about being put on the No Fly List is not moot simply because the government later took the plaintiff off the List. To show mootness, the government must disclose the conduct that landed the plaintiff on the No Fly List and ensure that they will not be placed back on the List for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future.

Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that transportation workers do not need to formally work in the transportation industry to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., 601 U.S. 257 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that pure omissions are not actionable under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b–5(b). Under Rule 10b–5(b), it is unlawful "[t]o make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading."

As a condition of receiving a residential building permit, petitioner George Sheetz was required by the County of El Dorado to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee. Held: The Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions. Pp. 4–11.

DeVillier v. Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on April 16, 2024. The case dealt with the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence. Because the case touched on whether or not the 5th Amendment is self-executing, the case had implications for Trump v. Anderson and whether or not section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is self-executing, though ultimately the Anderson decision was announced before DeVillier. The Court heard oral argument on January 16, 2024.

Rudisill v. McDonough, 601 U.S. 294 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that veterans who accrue educational benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills may use either or both, and may use them in any order.

McIntosh v. United States, 601 U.S. 330 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a court's failure to enter a preliminary order imposing criminal forfeiture before sentencing does not necessarily bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing.

Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow maintains that her employer, the St. Louis Police Department, transferred her from one job to another because she is a woman. Held: An employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identif- able term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be sig- nifcant. Pp. 354–360.

Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. 366 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, assuming the discovery rule applies to copyright infringement, the three-year statute of limitations for an infringement suit does not prevent recovery.

Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377 (2024), is a case decided by Supreme Court of the United States regarding the timing of post-seizure probable cause hearings under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court was asked to determine whether the "speedy trial" test from Barker v. Wingo or the balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge applies to a judicial-forfeiture proceeding.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., 601 U.S. 416 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is allocated from the Federal Treasury budget rather that through Congressional appropriations, is constitutional under the Appropriations Clause.

Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, when a court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act compels the court to issue a stay, and the court lacks discretion to dismiss the suit.

Harrow v. Department of Defense, 601 U.S. 480 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the 60-day filing deadline for appeals of decisions by the Merit Systems Protection Board is not jurisdictional, so courts have discretion to equitably toll it.