United States Reports

Honeycutt v. United States, 581 U.S. 443 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that there is no joint and several liability for forfeitures in federal conspiracy judgments when a party did not personally benefit from the crime.

Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 581 U.S. 455 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, because SEC disgorgement is a punitive measure rather than a compensatory one, any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrued.

Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, 581 U.S. 468 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization qualifies as a "church plan," regardless of who established it.

White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an officer did not violate clearly established law and was entitled to qualified immunity when he arrived late at an ongoing police action, saw shots being fired by people inside a house surrounded by other officers, and fatally shot an armed occupant of the house without first giving a warning.

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., 580 U.S. 82 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified whether Fannie Mae can be sued in state courts. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that plaintiffs may file lawsuits against Fannie Mae in any state or federal court that is "already endowed with subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit."

Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the death sentence of the defendant Duane Buck after the defendant's attorney introduced evidence that suggested the defendant would be more likely to commit violent acts in the future because he was black.

Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., 580 U.S. 140 (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the application of the Patent Act of 1952 to the sale of components of patented inventions in foreign markets. In an opinion written by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that the sale of a "single component" in a foreign market "does not constitute a substantial portion of the components that can give rise to liability under [the Patent Act of 1952]." Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which he was joined Justice Clarence Thomas. Chief Justice John Roberts took no part in the decision of the case.

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 does not command exhaustion of state-level administrative remedies codified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the gravamen of the plaintiff's lawsuit is not related to the denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 580 U.S. 178 (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court evaluated whether Virginia's legislature – the Virginia General Assembly – violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by considering racial demographics when drawing the boundaries of twelve of the state's legislative districts.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE–1, 580 U.S. 386 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), required schools to provide students an education that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances." In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405 (2017), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court decided under what circumstances aesthetic elements of "useful articles" can be restricted by copyright law. The Court created a two-prong "separability" test, granting copyrightability based on separate identification and independent existence; the aesthetic elements must be identifiable as art if mentally separated from the article's practical use, and must qualify as copyrightable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works if expressed in any medium. The case was a dispute between two clothing manufacturers, Star Athletica and Varsity Brands.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.

Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U.S. 5 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the application of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause to cases in which a jury returns irreconcilable verdicts that convict a defendant on one count and acquit a defendant on another count when both counts rely upon the same ultimate fact.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 580 U.S. 26 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the consequences of violating the False Claims Act's requirement that cases be kept under seal. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that a violation of the False Claim Act's seal requirement does not require the dismissal of a complaint.

Salman v. United States, 580 U.S. 39 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that gifts of confidential information without any compensation to relatives for the purposes of insider trading are a violation of securities laws. The Court relied on its decision in Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), which held that "that a tippee is exposed to liability for trading on inside information only if the tippee participates in a breach of the tipper's fiduciary duty."

Apple Inc. vs Samsung Inc., 580 U.S. 53, is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Inc. in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones since the early 2010s, and made about 40% of all smartphones sold worldwide as of 2024. In early 2011, Apple initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Samsung, who typically responded with countersuits. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the phone wars: the colloquial term for extensive litigation and fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications.

Shaw v. United States, 580 U.S. 63 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified the application of the federal bank fraud statute to cases where a defendant intends to only defraud a customer of the bank, rather than the bank itself.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 579 of the United States Reports: Note: As of December 2025, final bound volumes for the U.S. Supreme Court's United States Reports have been published through volume 585 (June 2018). Newer cases from subsequent future volumes do not yet have official page numbers and typically use three underscores in place of the page number; e.g., Example v. United States, 700 U.S. ___ (2050).

Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. 59 (2016), is a criminal case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States, which considered whether Puerto Rico and the federal government of the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. 93 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.

Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, 579 U.S. 115 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Chapters 9 and 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code preempt the corresponding sections of the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act because states may not enact municipal bankruptcy laws, and the territory Puerto Rico is usually included in the definition of a "state" within the Federal Bankruptcy Code.

United States v. Bryant, 579 U.S. 140 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that tribal-court convictions from proceedings that complied with Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 may be used as predicate offenses in subsequent prosecution.

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a Supreme Court of the United States case addressing overtime pay. Specifically at issue is whether automotive service advisors are eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.

Taylor v. United States, 579 U.S. 301 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, the government is not required to prove an interstate commerce element beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court relied on its decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), which held that Congress has the authority to regulate the marijuana market given that even local activities can have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), also known as Fisher II (to distinguish it from the 2013 case), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy. The decision was overturned by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) seven years later.

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the search incident to arrest doctrine permits law enforcement to conduct warrantless breath tests but not blood tests on suspected drunk drivers.

Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 579 U.S. 545 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court was asked to determine if an American Indian tribal court had the jurisdiction to hear a civil case involving a non-Indian who operated a Dollar General store on tribal land under a consensual relationship with the tribe. The Court was equally divided, 4–4, and thereby affirmed the decision of the lower court, in this case the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that the court had jurisdiction.

United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. 547 (2016), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.

McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the appeal of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell's conviction for honest services fraud and Hobbs Act extortion. At issue on appeal was whether the definition of "official act" within the federal bribery statutes encompassed the actions for which McDonnell had been convicted and whether the jury had been properly instructed on this definition at trial.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court announced on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had enjoined the enforcement of similar laws.

Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. 686 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban in U.S. federal law extends to those convicted of reckless domestic violence. The court reached its judgment in a 6–2 majority.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 578 U.S. 1 (2016), is a United States labor law case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue in the case was whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) should be overruled, with public-sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment, and whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring employees to consent affirmatively to subsidizing such speech. Specifically, the case concerned public sector collective bargaining by the California Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association.

Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.

Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the principle of one person, one vote, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution allows states to use total population, not just total voting-eligible population, to draw legislative districts.

Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the decision in Johnson v. United States announced a substantive rule change and is therefore retroactive.

Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, 578 U.S. 150 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state regulation of the energy market is preempted if it conflicts with requirements set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, including rates.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (short: Hyatt II), 578 U.S. 171 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Nevada rule that does not extend the same immunities to agencies of other states as it does to its own is effectively a "policy of hostility", which is unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court split equally on the question whether Nevada v. Hall should be overruled, effectively upholding it.

Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's reliance on a requirement that defendants show "additional evidence" to show substantial harm arising from incorrect sentencing guidelines is impermissible.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 578 U.S. 253 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the one person, one vote principle under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows a state's redistricting commission slight variances in drawing of legislative districts provided that the variance does not exceed 10 percent. The Court found that the map, created by a bipartisan commission on the basis of the 2010 census, was constitutional.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. 266 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. 282 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments.

Sheriff v. Gillie, 578 U.S. 317 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the use of the Ohio Attorney General's letterhead, as its direction, was permissible and not a false, deceptive, or misleading representation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. The Court did not discuss whether "the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion — that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact — was correct."

Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, 578 U.S. 355 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the term "actual fraud" in the discharge exceptions of Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code encompasses fraudulent conveyance schemes even when those schemes do not involve a false representation.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 8–0, that the jurisdictional test established by §27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is the same as 28 U.S.C. § 1331's test for deciding if a case "arises under" a federal law.

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. 403 (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 578 U.S. 419 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether a prevailing party must succeed on the merits to seek attorney's fees. In a unanimous decision authored by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that a defendant need not succeed on the merits in order to be the prevailing party for the purposes of seeking attorney fees.

Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. 437 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the right to a speedy trial does not guarantee the right to speedy sentencing. It was decided on May 19, 2016.

Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. 452 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided the interpretation of section 1101(a)(43) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which includes "aggravated felony" as a possible reason for deporting a non-citizen. The INA specifies certain offenses described in the federal criminal code as qualifying as an aggravated felony. The question before the court was if the plaintiff Jorge Luna Torres, who had been convicted under a state arson statute mostly identical to the federal statute but lacking an interstate or foreign commerce element in the federal law, fell under this definition of aggravated felony. The Court affirmed the U.S.