Volume 602 — United States Reports

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U.S. 1 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding racial gerrymandering and partisan gerrymandering within South Carolina's 1st congressional district, which includes most of Charleston.

These cases concern the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act to state drug convictions that occurred before recent technical… Held: A state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that conviction. Pp. 4– 19. (a) The parties propose three different answers to the question whether the federal and state definitions of a drug must match when the state crime is committed or at some later point in time.

Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that where one contract between parties sends disputes to arbitration and another contract sends disputes to courts, a court must decide which contract governs.

Thornell v. Jones, 602 U.S. 154 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted and applied Strickland v. Washington incorrectly. The Ninth Circuit's decision was reversed, and the death sentence was reinstated. Alito said that the Ninth Circuit's characterizations of the mitigating and aggravating factors were misleading, emphasizing the former and downplaying the latter inappropriately.

National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case resulting in a unanimous ruling that if Maria T. Vullo, the former director of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), attempted to coerce financial institutions in the state to refrain from doing business with the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), then such conduct would violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 602 U.S. 205 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals failed to analyze whether New York’s interest-on-escrow law was preempted as applied to national banks in a manner consistent with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson.

Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 602 U.S. 222 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case which determined that the federal government must provide additional funding to cover some third-party administrative costs incurred by Native American tribes that operate their own health-care programs.

Connelly v. United States, 602 U.S. 257 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a corporation's contractual obligation to redeem shares is not necessarily a liability that reduces a corporation's value for purposes of the federal estate tax. When calculating the federal estate tax, the value of a decedent's shares in a closely held corporation must reflect the corporation's fair market value. The Court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., 602 U.S. 268 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an insurer with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a "party in interest" under §1109(b) that "may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue" in a Chapter 11 case.

Drawing on a 2016 Presidential primary debate exchange between then- candidate Donald Trump and Senator Marco Rubio, respondent Steve Elster sought to federally register the trademark “Trump too… Held: The Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amend- ment. Pp. 3–22.

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024), was a U.S. Supreme Court case about what standard a court must apply before granting a preliminary injunction requested by the National Labor Relations Board. The Court held in an 8–1 decision that the ordinary four-factor Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council test applies.

Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case to challenge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s approval of mifepristone, a drug frequently used in medical abortion procedures. The plaintiffs, led by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), argued that the FDA did not properly approve the use of the drug mifepristone for pregnancy termination under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regulations and asked for an injunction to withdraw the drug's approval, thus removing it from the market. AHM's suit followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022, which reversed Roe v.

Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the classification of bump stocks as "machine guns" under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2018. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that bump stocks are not machine guns for purposes of the NFA, vacating the ATF rule and finding that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority.

To initiate the removal of an alien from the United States who is either “inadmissible” under 8 U. S. C. §1182 or “deportable” under §1227, the Federal Government must provide the alien with… Held: Because each of the aliens in this case received a proper §1229(a)(2) notice for the hearings they missed and at which they were ordered removed, they cannot seek rescission of their in absentia re- moval orders on the basis of defective notice under §1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). Pp 7–16.

Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, 602 U.S. 487 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that prospective parity is the appropriate remedy for the short-lived and small disparity created by the fee statute held unconstitutional in Siegel v. Fitzgerald.

Petitioner Delilah Diaz was stopped at a port of entry on the United States-Mexico border. Held: Expert testimony that “most people” in a group have a particular mental state is not an opinion about “the defendant” and thus does not violate Rule 704(b). Pp. 4–11.

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, 602 U.S. 556 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether the presence of probable cause for one criminal charge bars a Fourth Amendment “malicious-prosecution” claim (brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) attacking a different charge in the same proceeding. In a 6–3 opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court held that probable cause for one charge does not categorically defeat a claim that another contemporaneous charge lacked probable cause and caused a seizure. The Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s contrary rule and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of causation.

Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. 572 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of the federal government to tax unrealized gains as income. The Supreme Court upheld the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT).

Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that plaintiffs alleging retaliatory arrest need only provide evidence that their arrest occurred in circumstances where probable cause exists to arrest, but officers typically exercise discretion and decline to arrest. This case is related to Nieves v. Bartlett.

United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and whether it empowers the government to prohibit firearm possession by a person with a civil domestic violence restraining order in the absence of a corresponding criminal domestic violence conviction or charge.

Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States case in which the court held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements in support of the expert's opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth.

Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to the right to a jury trial in criminal cases under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The case was argued on March 27, 2024, and decided on June 21.

Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a "citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country." The case was a challenge by a U.S. citizen to the State Department's rejection of her non-citizen husband's application for an immigration visa with little explanation.

Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, 602 U.S. 943 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court denied the States' motion to enter the consent decree because the proposed consent decree would have disposed of the United States' Compact claims without its consent.