Volume 603 — United States Reports

Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. 1 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 18 U.S.C. § 666 prohibits bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts.

Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43 (2024), originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment, the federal government, and social media. The states of Missouri and Louisiana, led by Missouri's then Attorney General Eric Schmitt, filed suit against the U.S. government in the Western District of Louisiana. They claimed that the federal government pressured social media companies to censor conservative views and criticism of the Biden administration in violation of the right to freedom of expression. The government said it had only made requests, not demands, that social media operators remove misinformation. On July 4, 2023, Judge Terry A.

In the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash of 1929, Congress passed a suite of laws designed to combat securities fraud and increase market… Held: When the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securi- ties fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. Pp. 6–27. (a) The question presented by this case—whether the Seventh Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud—is straightforward.

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The case addressed the 2022-2023 Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement and whether, under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release extinguishing claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent could move forward. Following deliberations, the justices determined that the Bankruptcy Code did not authorize the claimant's order, blocking the bankruptcy plan.

Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, 603 U.S. 279 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Clean Air Act.

Certiorari dismissed and stays vacated. Joshua N. Turner, Deputy Solicitor General of Idaho, argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. On the briefs in No. 23–726 were Taylor A. R. Meehan, Brandon Haase, and Daniel W. Bower.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the field of administrative law, the law governing regulatory agencies. Together with its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, it overruled the principle of Chevron deference established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), which had directed courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguity in a law that the agency enforces. In lieu of Chevron, the decision assigns the determination of congressional ambiguity to the judicial branch, with executive agency expertise still to be considered under the weaker Skidmore deference.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, docu- ment, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the… Held: To prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520 (2024), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that local government ordinances with civil and criminal penalties for camping on public land do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment of homeless people.

Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch. Trump is a federal case that was ultimately dismissed by federal district court judge Tanya Chutkan, following Trump's 2024 election. Trump's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the case, citing the Department of Justice's policy not to prosecute sitting presidents.

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, 603 U.S. 707 (2024), were United States Supreme Court cases related to protected speech under the First Amendment and content moderation by interactive service providers on the Internet under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Moody and Paxton were challenges to two state statutes – enacted in Florida and Texas, respectively – that sought to limit this moderation. In July 2024, the justices vacated the lower-court decisions in both cases due to both courts failing to perform a full First Amendment assessment of the laws, and remanded them for further consideration.

Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 603 U.S. 799 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case about the statute of limitations for judicial review of federal agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal question under review was whether a challenge to the validity of a rule must be brought within six years of the rule's issuance—or instead within six years of when the rule first injures the particular plaintiff challenging the rule. The Supreme Court held, by a 6–3 vote, that the statute of limitations does not start running until the particular plaintiff has been harmed by the agency action.

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.