United States Reports

Byrd v. United States, 584 U.S. 395 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that drivers of rental cars have rights protecting them from unconstitutional searches by police, even if the drivers are not listed on the rental agreement.

McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to decide that the objective of his defense is to maintain innocence at all costs, even when counsel believes that admitting guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty.

Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027, 584 U.S. 586 (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States involving search and seizure. At issue was whether the Fourth Amendment's motor vehicle exception permits a police officer uninvited and without a warrant to enter private property, approach a house, and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house that is otherwise visible from off the property. In an 8–1 judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the automobile exception does not apply to vehicles parked within the home or the curtilage of a private homeowner.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs. The case dealt with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs.

Hughes v. United States, 584 U.S. 675 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) is "based on" the defendant's Guidelines range so long as that range was part of the framework the district court relied on in imposing the sentence or accepting the agreement.

Washington v. United States, 584 U.S. 837 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding Native American fishing rights in the U.S. state of Washington. In the case, the court deadlocked 4-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy recusing himself due to his prior involvement in the case as a judge on the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The deadlock left standing a lower court ruling that the State of Washington must redesign and rebuild road culverts to allow salmon to swim upstream, to uphold Native American treaty rights to fish.

District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police officers had probable cause to arrest those attending a party in Washington, D.C.

Class v. United States, 583 U.S. 174 (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case on challenges to the constitutionality of a federal law by a defendant who has already pleaded guilty.

Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that detained immigrants do not have a statutory right to periodic bond hearings.

Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 582 U.S. 1 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Section 262(l)(2)(A) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 is not enforceable by injunction under federal law. An applicant may provide notice under Section 262(l)(8)(A) prior to obtaining licensure.

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 582 U.S. 23 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that Federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review a denial of class certification after plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.

Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U.S. 47 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that challenged the difference in physical presence requirements in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for unwed mothers and fathers when acquiring citizenship for a child born in a foreign country. Unwed fathers had longer physical presence requirements than unwed mothers in regards to being able to convey derivative citizenship. In an eight to zero decision, the court found that the difference in physical presence requirements violated the equal protection clause and due process. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. The case had implications for Congress's plenary power over immigration and the issue of statelessness.

Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. 79 (2017), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that a company is not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if it purchased that debt and then attempts to collect from the debtor. It was Justice Neil Gorsuch's first written opinion since joining the Court in April 2017.

Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a North Carolina statute that prohibited registered sex offenders from using social media websites was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech.

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120 (2017), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined, by a vote of 4–2, that non-U.S. citizens detained in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot recover monetary damages from high level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement. The case was consolidated with Hastey v. Abbasi, and Ashcroft v. Abbasi. It was argued on January 18, 2017.

McWilliams v. Dunn, 582 U.S. 183 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when the conditions of Ake v. Oklahoma are met, the state must provide a defendant with access to a mental health expert who is sufficiently available to the defense and independent from the prosecution to effectively conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) (previously known as Lee v. Tam) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. 255 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. It is part of a group of six cases decided since 2011 that have greatly changed the application of personal jurisdiction.

Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that in the context of a public-trial violation during jury selection, where the error is neither preserved nor raised on direct review but is raised later via an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the defendant must demonstrate prejudice to secure a new trial.

Turner v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that evidence withheld by the prosecution is only Brady material if there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different, considering the context of the entire record. If the evidence is too little, too weak, or too distant from the main evidentiary points, there is no violation.

Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the government cannot revoke the citizenship of a naturalized U.S. citizen based on an immaterial false statement made by the citizen in their naturalization application.

Jae Lee v. United States, 582 U.S. 357 (2017), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a criminal defendant raises Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims, they only need to prove by reasonable probability that they were wrongly prejudiced by their counsel to accept a plea deal rather than go to trial. The Court specified that the issue did not arise from a possibility that the outcome of Lee's conviction would've been different had he gone to trial. The case was largely decided based on the landmark case Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

Murr v. Wisconsin, 582 U.S. 383 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the reviewing court was correct to analyze the lot owners' property as a single unit in assessing the effect of a governmental action challenged as a regulatory taking.

Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the proper review forum when the Merit Systems Protection Board dismisses a mixed case on jurisdictional grounds is district court. A "mixed case" is a complaint brought by an employee about a serious adverse employment action that attributes the action, in whole or in part, to bias based on race, gender, age, or disability.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. 449 (2017), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Missouri program that denied a grant to a religious school for playground resurfacing, while providing grants to similarly situated non-religious groups, violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., 582 U.S. 497 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the statute of limitations for a complaint under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 is not subject to equitable tolling.

Davila v. Davis, 582 U.S. 521 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel does not provide cause to excuse the procedural default of ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims.

This article outlines cases related to LGBTQ issues that have been brought before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court decision about the death penalty and intellectual disability. The court held that contemporary clinical standards determine what an intellectual disability is, and held that even milder forms of intellectual disability may bar a person from being sentenced to death due to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The case clarified two earlier cases, Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and Hall v. Florida (2014).

Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. 37 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regard to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.

Dean v. United States, 581 U.S. 62 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Section 924(c), which provides mandatory minimum sentences for the use of a firearm during certain crimes, does not prevent a sentencing court from considering a mandatory minimum imposed under that provision when calculating an appropriate sentence for the predicate offense.

McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 581 U.S. 72 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a district court's decision whether to enforce or quash a subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo.

Coventry Health Care v. Nevils, 581 U.S. 87 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that federal laws governing federal employees' health insurance preempt state laws affecting contractual subrogation and reimbursement prescriptions.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when a court sanctions bad-faith conduct by ordering a litigant to pay the other side’s legal fees, the award is limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the bad-faith misconduct.

Manrique v. United States, 581 U.S. 116 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a defendant wishing to appeal an order imposing restitution in a deferred restitution case must file a notice of appeal from that order.

Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U.S. 128 (2017), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 7-1 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a state has no right to keep fines and other money collected based on an invalid conviction. Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring with the judgment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. 155 (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–0 that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in a suit against a tribal employee in his individual capacity, and an indemnification provision cannot extend tribal sovereign immunity to cases in which it would otherwise not apply. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg each wrote concurring opinions that both said that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in suits arising from commercial activity off of tribal territory. Justice Neil Gorsuch was not involved in the discussion or decision of this case.

Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., 581 U.S. 170 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a court should decide a foreign sovereign's immunity defense at the threshold of the action. The nonfrivolous-argument standard cannot be used to decide if a case falls within the scope of the expropriation exception to foreign sovereign immunity.

Bank of America Corp. v. Miami, 581 U.S. 189 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a city can be an "aggrieved person" authorized to bring suit under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and that foreseeability of harm is not sufficient to establish proximate cause between the alleged conduct and the alleged harm under the FHA.

Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a state court may not order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss in the divorced spouse's portion of the veteran's retirement pay caused by the veteran's waiver of retirement pay to receive service-related disability benefits.

Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. 224 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the filing of a bankruptcy proof of claim that is obviously time-barred is not a false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable debt-collection practice within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Kindred Nursing Centers, L.P. v. Clark, 581 U.S. 246 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the FAA preempts any state rule that discriminates on its face against arbitration or that covertly accomplishes the same objective by disfavoring contracts that have the defining features of arbitration agreements.

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits.

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U.S. 271 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Hague Service Convention permits service of judicial process abroad by mail, provided that the country in which the service takes place has not objected to service by mail, and service by mail is authorized in the country where the litigation is pending.

Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285 (2017), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled 5–3 that the North Carolina General Assembly used race too heavily in re-drawing two Congressional districts following the 2010 Census.

Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 581 U.S. 360 (2017), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the exhaustion doctrine in patent law in which the Court held that after the sale of a patented item, the patent holder cannot sue for patent infringement relating to further use of that item, even when in violation of a contract with a customer or imported from outside the United States. The case concerned a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Lexmark against Impression Products, Inc., which bought used ink cartridges, refilled them, replaced a microchip on the cartridge to circumvent a digital rights management scheme, and then resold them.

Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 581 U.S. 385 (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–0 that in the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" requires the age of the victim to be less than 16. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. 402, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Montana courts lacked personal jurisdiction over a railroad that was not incorporated in Montana and did not have its principal place of business in Montana, even though the railroad had more than 2,000 miles of track and 2,000 employees within Montana. It was the first Supreme Court case argued before a Court that included newly appointed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Los Angeles County v. Mendez, 581 U.S. 420 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that under the Fourth Amendment, there is no "provocation rule" that makes an officer's reasonable use of force unreasonable if the officer provoked the violent confrontation by violating the Fourth Amendment.

Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U.S. 433 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a litigant seeking to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) must meet the requirements of Article III standing if the intervenor wishes to pursue relief not requested by a plaintiff.