United States Reports

Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, 606 U.S. 100 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval under the Clean Air Act of California regulations requiring automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles.

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute. District courts must independently determine the law's meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation. At issue in the case was the interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by the Federal Communications Commission.

Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. 185 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a district court considering whether to revoke a defendant's term of supervised release may not consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), which covers retribution vis-à-vis the defendant’s underlying criminal offense.

Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., 606 U.S. 226 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that retailers who would sell a new tobacco product if not for the Food and Drug Administration's denial order may seek judicial review of that order.

Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals denying deferral of removal in a withholding only proceeding is not a final order of removal. The 30-day filing deadline to challenge a final order of removal is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.

Gutierrez v. Saenz, 606 U.S. 305 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a person sentenced to death had standing to challenge Texas DNA-testing procedures under the Due Process Clause.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, 606 U.S. 357 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Medicaid Act does not give individuals an enforceable right to choose a specific healthcare provider.

Hewitt v. United States, 606 U.S. 419 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that all first-time 18 U.S.C. §924(c) offenders who appear for sentencing after the First Step Act's enactment date, including those whose previous §924(c) sentences have been vacated and who thus need to be resentenced, are subject to the Act’s revised penalties.

Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case about parents who wished to opt their children out of instruction involving LGBTQ-themed storybooks in a Maryland public school system. The Court held that the school district's policy of not permitting opt-outs violated the parents' right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research, 606 U.S. 656 (2025), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, concerning a challenge by Consumers' Research against the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund program. Consumers' Research argued that the program violated the nondelegation doctrine. The Supreme Court heard the case following contradictory rulings on the matter by the Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits.

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., 606 U.S. 748 (2025), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does not violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause. The defendant was the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which was initially Xavier Becerra, and later Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether lower-court judges have the authority to issue "universal injunctions" to block the enforcement of policies nationwide. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that universal injunctions exceed the judiciary power unless necessary to provide the formal plaintiff with "complete relief". Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that "complete relief" for a plaintiff was distinct from "universal relief" impacting all similar situations nationwide.

Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy, 605 U.S. 1 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Medicare disproportionate share hospital adjustments should only consider patients as "entitled to supplementary security income benefits" if they received such benefits during the month in which they were hospitalized.

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, 605 U.S. 38 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that American military reservists are entitled to differential pay whenever they are called to active duty during a national emergency, regardless of whether their service is substantially connected to the emergency.

Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. 73 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the "totality of the circumstances" test for evaluating excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment, previously established in Tennessee v. Garner (1985). Writing for a unanimous court, Associate Justice Elena Kagan rejected a "moment of the threat" test, used by some of the Circuit Courts, as excessively narrow within the scope of the Fourth Amendment.

Kousisis v. United States, 605 U.S. 114 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case unanimously holding that a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss.

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, 605 U.S. 168 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the National Environmental Policy Act only requires the environmental impact statements of government agencies to consider impacts that they have regulatory power over. Courts must defer to agencies on whether upstream and downstream industrial activity is within the scope of a project's approval.

Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, 605 U.S. 238 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case that held the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision denying Catholic Charities Bureau a tax exemption available to religious entities under Wisconsin law violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court found that Wisconsin's denial was unconstitutional because it discriminated against religious organizations based on their religious activities.

A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, 605 U.S. 335 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that schoolchildren bringing Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts, rather than a higher standard.

Soto v. United States, 605 U.S. 360 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the combat-related special compensation (CRSC) statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and limitations period.

Parrish v. United States, 605 U.S. 376 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.

Commissioner v. Zuch, 605 U.S. 422 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the United States Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve disputes between a taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) when the IRS is no longer pursuing a levy.

Rivers v. Guerrero, 605 U.S. 443 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a first-filed habeas corpus petition, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a "second or successive application" properly subject to the requirements of §2244(b).

Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. 460 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that parties are entitled to a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim.

United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that a Tennessee state law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency, 605 U.S. 609 (2025), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed where lawsuits challenging certain EPA actions must be filed. The Court held that when the EPA disapproves a state implementation plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act, that decision is a local or regional action, not a national one. As a result, challenges must be brought in the appropriate regional federal appeals courts, rather than exclusively in the D.C. Circuit.

EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, 605 U.S. 627 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Environmental Protection Agency's denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the "nationwide scope or effect" exception of the Clean Air Act, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that only parties to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing proceedings are entitled to obtain judicial review of the Commission's licensing decisions.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.