United States Reports

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that rejected the independent state legislature theory (ISL), a theory that asserts state legislatures have sole authority to establish election laws for federal elections within their respective states without judicial review by state courts, without presentment to state governors, and without constraint by state constitutions. The case arose from the redistricting of North Carolina's districts by its legislature after the 2020 United States census, which the state courts found to be too artificial and partisan and an extreme case of gerrymandering in favor of the Republican Party.

Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (2023), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the line between true threats of violence punishable as crimes and free speech protected by the First Amendment. The states and lower courts were divided over how to define the line. By a 7-2 majority, the court decided that statements are not free speech if the defendant recklessly disregarded a substantial risk that their statements would be viewed as threatening violence. Beginning in 2010, Billy Counterman sent thousands of messages to singer-songwriter Coles Whalen that foreboded her death and followed her activities. Counterman was convicted of stalking in Colorado, with his conviction left intact by the Colorado Court of Appeals and Colorado Supreme Court.

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Pennsylvania law is consistent with Due Process. That law requires out-of-state companies to agree to appear, for all lawsuits against them, in Pennsylvania courts as a prerequisite to registering for business in the state. .

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that race-based affirmative action programs in most college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With its companion case, Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), both of which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions. In 2014, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard University in U.S.

Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., 600 U.S. 412 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding provisions of the Lanham Act. The Court decided whether or not the Act applies to foreign sales.

Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding religious liberty and employment accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prior, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) had established that an employer could deny an employee religious exemptions from work if they could show "undue hardship" in making the accommodation, a vague phrase at the center of Groff. The case was decided unanimously for Groff by the Court.

Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the forgiveness of federal student loans by the Biden administration in 2022, challenged by multiple states. The Supreme Court's ruling was issued on June 30, 2023, ruling 6–3 that the Secretary of Education did not have the power to waive student loans under the HEROES Act.