Volume 604 — United States Reports

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eleven per curiam opinions during its 2024 term, which began October 7, 2024, and concluded on October 5, 2025.

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.

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case about whether an individual can obtain judicial review regarding a revoked visa petition based on non-discretionary criteria. The US Supreme Court ruled that visa revocations are left to the discretion of the Homeland Security Department, so they cannot be judicially reviewed.

Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 81 F. 4th 918. Per Curiam. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. It is so ordered. Neal Kumar Katyal argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Katherine B. Wellington, Wil- liam E. Havemann, Reedy C. Swanson, Sarah M. Lightdale, Patrick J. Hayden, John C. Dwyer, Patrick E. Gibbs, Sa- Page Proof Pending Publication mantha A. Kirby, and Kathleen R. Hartnett.

Respondent Anastasia Wullschleger sued petitioner Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc., in state court, alleging that Royal Canin had engaged in deceptive marketing practices. Held: When a plaintiff amends her complaint to delete the federal-law claims that enabled removal to federal court, leaving only state-law claims behind, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, and the case must be remanded to state court. Pp. 30–44.

In 1938, Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), guaran- teeing a federal minimum wage for covered workers, 29 U. S. C. § 206 (a)(1), and requiring overtime pay for those working more… Held: The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an em- ployer seeks to demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the FLSA. Pp. 49–54.

TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, 604 U.S. 56 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok challenging the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) based on the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Bill of Attainder Clause of Article One, Section Nine. The case was consolidated with Firebaugh v. Garland, a lawsuit TikTok content creators filed which also challenged the law. Citing national security concerns, the U.S.

Andrew v. White, 604 U.S. 86 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, holding that, as established in Payne v. Tennessee, the Due Process Clause forbids the introduction of evidence so unduly prejudicial as to render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) provides foreign states with presumptive immunity from suit in the United States. 28 U. S. C. § 1604 . Held: Alleging commingling of funds alone cannot satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the FSIA's expropriation exception. Pp. 126–139.

The E-Rate (short for Education-Rate) program, established under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, subsidizes internet and other telecom- munications services for schools and libraries across the… Held: The E-Rate reimbursement requests at issue are “claims” under the FCA because the Government “provided” (at a minimum) a “portion” of the money applied for by transferring more than $100 million from the Treasury into the Fund. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I).

Williams v. Reed, 604 U.S. 168 (2025), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that state laws requiring exhaustion of state administrative remedies are preempted by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act when they prevent a state court from hearing claims challenging delays in the administrative process.

Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that a preliminary injunction under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 does not qualify the litigants as the "prevailing party" for the purposes of recouping attorney's fees, even if case was ended due to mootness of the challenged law being repealed before further judicial proceedings. This case reinforced the "American rule" that each side pays its legal costs unless a statute expressly authorizes otherwise.

2. Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. 3. Whether due process requires reversal when a capital conviction is so erroneous that the State no longer seeks to defend it.

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 604 U.S. 305 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure empowers federal courts to reverse voluntary dismissals when based on a mistake, among other reasons.

Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., 604 U.S. 321 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Lanham Act awards of a "defendant's profits" in trademark infringement cases do not extend to the profits of the defendant's corporate affiliates.

Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq., the Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) and authorized state agencies issue permits that impose… Held: Section 1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize the EPA to include “end- result” provisions in NPDES permits. Determining what steps a per- mittee must take to ensure that water quality standards are met is the EPA's responsibility, and Congress has given it the tools needed to make that determination. Pp. 344–355.

Bufkin v. Collins, 604 U.S. 369 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must apply clear error review when reviewing the Department of Veterans Affairs's application of the "benefit-of-the-doubt rule" regarding a veteran's claim to a service-related disability.

Thompson v. United States, 604 U.S. 408 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that prosecution for making a false statement to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 requires the statement to be false, rather than simply misleading.

Delligatti v. United States, 604 U.S. 423 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case clarifying that Title 18 of the US Code's definition of "violent crime" encompasses crimes of omission that result in physical force using firearms.

Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. 458 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) 2021 regulations revising its interpretation of the Gun Control Act of 1968's use of the terms "firearm", "firearm frame", and "receiver" to cover "ghost gun" kits of weapon parts. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that because facial challenges against regulations require all applications to be inconsistent with the underlying statute, the ATF's regulations could not be struck down under this standard.

United States v. Miller, 604 U.S. 518 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the US Bankruptcy Code's waiver of sovereign immunity does not entitle a bankruptcy trustee to recover a debtor's fraudulent federal tax payments.

FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C., 604 U.S. 542 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Food and Drug Administration's denial of authorization to market flavored electronic cigarette products was not arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 604 U. S. 593 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that a clause of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act creating a private cause of action for "any person injured in his business or property" did not exempt claims originating from a personal injury.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION et al. v. CALIFORNIA et al. on application to vacate the order issued by the united states district court for the district of massachusetts No. 24A910. Held: The District Court's order is stayed pending appeal. Although ap- pellate courts generally lack jurisdiction over appeals from TROs, the District Court's order contains hallmarks of an appealable preliminary injunction. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U. S. 61, 87 .

TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. J. G. G. et al. on application to vacate the orders issued by the united states district court for the district of columbia No. 24A931. Held: The Government's application is construed as an application to va- cate appealable injunctions, see Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 , and is granted. The parties' underlying arguments cannot be reached in this action.

Cunningham v. Cornell University, 604 U.S. 693, is a United States Supreme Court case holding that conflict of interest claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 do not need to address exceptions in the initial pleading.

The federal government initiated removal proceedings against petitioner Monsalvo Velázquez, who asked the government to suspend its removal efforts or, alternatively, to permit him to leave the… Held: This Court has jurisdiction to review Monsalvo's petition. Under § 1252, courts may review “fnal order[s] of removal” and “all questions of law” arising from them.