Recent decisions

Most recent opinions

24 decisions

May 21, 2026OT 202523-1209

M & K Employee Solutions, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund

This case was about withdrawal liability, money an employer may owe after leaving a multiemployer pension plan. The dispute concerned how the IAM National Pension Fund calculated that amount under federal pension law. The key issue was whether calculations must use actuarial assumptions accepted at year's end or later-adopted assumptions. The Court's full reasoning is not yet available. The case was argued on January 20, 2026, after the Court agreed to review it. This matters because withdrawal liability can depend on predictions about future assets, liabilities, and interest rates. The answer could affect how much withdrawing employers must pay pension funds.

Majority author: KJ
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - KJ

May 21, 2026OT 202524-872

John Q. Hamm, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Petitioner v. Joseph Clifton Smith

This case concerns how courts should read several IQ test scores in a death penalty case. Joseph Clifton Smith was convicted of capital murder in Alabama and sentenced to death. He later filed a federal habeas corpus petition (a court challenge to detention), arguing intellectual disability bars execution. The Supreme Court agreed to review whether courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in an Atkins claim. The Court's full reasoning is not yet available. The case could shape how states evaluate Eighth Amendment protections for intellectually disabled people facing execution. It also matters when test scores vary, such as Smith's reported scores of 75, 74, 72, 78, and 74.

Majority author: Per Curiam
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - Per Curiam

May 21, 2026OT 202524-983

Havana Docks Corporation, Petitioner v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., et al.

This case was about whether Havana Docks could sue cruise lines that used docks at the Port of Havana. Havana Docks had a concession (a legal right to use property) that expired in 2004. Cuba seized the docks without compensation. The Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's decision and sent the case back. The syllabus says the lower court's counterfactual approach was difficult to understand and apply. The Court's full reasoning is not yet available. This matters because it affects Title III lawsuits over confiscated Cuban property. Congress said such trafficking can provide financial benefits to the Cuban government and affect U.S. policy.

Majority author: T
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - T

May 14, 2026OT 202525-83

Adrian Jules, Petitioner v. Andre Balazs Properties, et al.

Adrian Jules sued his former employer and related parties in federal court for discrimination and other claims. The case was sent to arbitration (a private dispute process) and stayed, meaning paused. The Court took the case to ask whether that court keeps jurisdiction (power to hear a case) afterward. The research record says the Court granted review after the Second Circuit decision. The Court's full reasoning is not yet available. This matters because it affects where people can go after arbitration ends. It could shape how easily parties ask federal courts to confirm or vacate awards.

Civil Rights

Majority author: SS
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - SS

May 14, 2026OT 202524-1238

Shawn Montgomery, Petitioner v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al.

This case asked whether a federal trucking law blocks, or preempts (overrides), a state negligence claim against a freight broker. Shawn Montgomery was severely injured in an Illinois highway crash involving a truck arranged by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. He claimed the broker negligently selected Caribe Transport II, LLC or its driver. The research record does not provide the Supreme Court’s final ruling. It says the Court granted review and heard argument on March 4, 2026. The Court's full reasoning is not yet available. This matters because it could affect when injured people may sue freight brokers after truck crashes. It also could shape how federal trucking law interacts with state safety-related claims.

Majority author: AB
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - AB

April 29, 2026OT 202524-781

First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., Petitioner v. Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey

This case involved First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a religious nonprofit in New Jersey. The state attorney general subpoenaed it, meaning ordered it to turn over documents, including donor information. First Choice argued this could chill its First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, meaning it sent the case back to a lower court for more proceedings. The context also shows the case concerned whether federal courts could hear First Choice’s constitutional claims. The Court’s full reasoning is not yet available here. This matters because it involves donor privacy and freedom of association for advocacy groups. It also affects when people can bring First Amendment claims in federal court.

First Amendment

Vote: 9-0
Majority author: Neil Gorsuch
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - NG

April 29, 2026OT 202524-109

Louisiana, Appellant v. Phillip Callais, et al.

On April 29, 2026, the Court affirmed and remanded the three-judge district court judgment. In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that Louisiana's SB8 congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court said compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be a compelling interest only when Section 2 is properly satisfied, and it updated the Gingles framework: illustrative maps cannot use race as a districting criterion, must meet the state's legitimate districting and political goals, racial-bloc voting evidence must control for party, and the totality inquiry must focus on present intentional discrimination. Applying that framework, the Court concluded Section 2 did not require Louisiana to create another majority-minority district, so SB8 failed strict scrutiny.

Elections Civil Rights

Vote: 6-3
Majority author: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - A

April 22, 2026OT 202524-783

Enbridge Energy, LP, et al., Petitioners v. Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, on Behalf of the People of the State of Michigan

Michigan sued Enbridge in state court over Line 5, a 645-mile petroleum pipeline. The state wanted to stop operations and challenge a 1953 easement (a legal right to use land). Enbridge did not try to remove the case to federal court within the 30-day deadline. The Supreme Court said district courts cannot excuse or equitably toll (pause for fairness) that 30-day removal deadline. It affirmed the Sixth Circuit. That meant the lawsuit had to be sent back to Michigan state court. This matters because it makes the removal deadline a strict rule. Companies that wait too long may lose the chance to move a case to federal court.

Immigration

Vote: 8-0
Majority author: Sonia Sotomayor
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - SS

April 22, 2026OT 202524-924

Winston Tyler Hencely, Petitioner v. Fluor Corporation, et al.

This case came from a suicide-bomb attack at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. Winston T. Hencely sued Fluor under South Carolina negligence law after he was badly injured stopping the attacker. The dispute asked whether federal law blocks state tort claims (civil lawsuits for harm) against a military contractor. The research shows the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Fourth Circuit’s decision, meaning it set that ruling aside and sent the case back. The Fourth Circuit had said wartime state-law claims tied to combatant activities were preempted (overridden by federal law). The Court's full reasoning is not yet available. This matters because it affects when injured people can sue government contractors during wartime. It also concerns how much protection contractors get when military operations are involved.

Business and Regulation

Vote: 5-3
Majority author: Clarence Thomas
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - T

April 17, 2026OT 202524-813

Chevron USA Incorporated, et al., Petitioners v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, et al.

This case was about lawsuits by Louisiana parishes against oil companies over environmental harm in the coastal zone. The parishes said some oil and gas uses lacked permits or were illegally started. The dispute asked whether claims tied to World War II oil production could be moved to federal court. The Supreme Court said the federal officer removal statute (a law allowing some cases to shift to federal court) applied here. The Court said Chevron’s World War II crude-oil production was “for or relating to” its wartime refining of aviation gasoline for the U.S. military. The research context does not provide more of the Court’s ruling details. This matters because it affects whether these environmental lawsuits are heard in state or federal court. It also shapes how broadly courts read wartime connections to federal government work.

Business and Regulation

Vote: 8-0
Majority author: Clarence Thomas
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - T

March 31, 2026OT 202524-539

Kaley Chiles, Petitioner v. Patty Salazar, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, et al.

This case was about a Colorado law banning licensed counselors from giving minors “conversion therapy.” Kaley Chiles, a licensed Colorado counselor, uses only talk therapy and said the law limited what she could say. The question was whether that law violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court ruled for Chiles and held that Colorado’s law violated the Free Speech Clause. It said the state could not apply the ban to a licensed counselor who uses only talk therapy. The vote was 8-1, and Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. This matters because it says the government usually cannot favor one viewpoint over another in counseling conversations. It also limits how states can regulate speech in licensed therapy.

First Amendment

Vote: 8-1
Majority author: Neil Gorsuch
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - NG

March 25, 2026OT 202524-171

Cox Communications, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Sony Music Entertainment, et al.

This case asked when an internet service provider can be responsible for users’ copyright infringement. The dispute focused on contributory liability (being legally responsible for someone else’s infringement). The question was whether knowledge of piracy, without cutting off access, was enough. The Court held that an internet service provider does not commit contributory copyright infringement simply by continuing service to subscribers flagged for piracy. The syllabus says contributory liability requires intent, such as affirmatively inducing infringement or selling a service tailored to infringement. The Court reversed and remanded the Fourth Circuit’s decision. This matters because internet access has many lawful uses, and knowledge alone was not enough here. The ruling also gives guidance on when online services can face copyright claims.

Vote: 9-0
Majority author: Clarence Thomas
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - T

March 25, 2026OT 202524-1056

Isabel Rico, Petitioner v. United States

This case asked whether supervised release (court monitoring after prison) automatically pauses when a person absconds (runs away and stops reporting). Isabel Rico was accused of violating release conditions by changing her residence without telling her probation officer. A warrant was issued, and authorities did not find her until January 2023. The Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not allow supervised release to automatically extend when a person absconds. It reversed and remanded the case, and Rico won. The vote was 8-1, and Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. This matters because judges must follow the time limits Congress wrote for supervised release. The Court said any new automatic-extension rule must come from Congress, not the courts.

Gun Rights

Vote: 8-1
Majority author: Neil Gorsuch
Primary opinion: opinion

March 23, 2026OT 202525-297

Zorn v. Linton

The Court said Zorn could not be sued for damages in this case because the law was not clearly established for these specific facts. The ruling reinforces a narrow, fact-specific approach to qualified immunity.

Criminal Procedure

Majority author: Per Curiam
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - Per Curiam

March 20, 2026OT 202524-993

Gabriel Olivier, Petitioner v. City of Brandon, Mississippi

Gabriel Olivier is a street preacher in Mississippi. He challenged a Brandon ordinance that required protests or demonstrations near amphitheater events to stay in a designated protest area. After his 2021 arrest and punishment, he sued under Section 1983 (a federal civil rights law) for future-focused relief. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 for Olivier. It said Heck v. Humphrey does not block Section 1983 claims seeking only prospective relief (a court order about future enforcement), even when the plaintiff was previously punished under the law. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion. This matters because people can still ask courts to stop future enforcement of a law they say is unconstitutional. The decision keeps Section 1983 available for forward-looking free speech challenges.

Criminal Procedure Civil Rights

Vote: 9-0
Majority author: Elena Kagan
Primary opinion: opinion

March 4, 2026OT 202524-1021

Cedric Galette, Petitioner v. New Jersey Transit Corporation

Cedric Galette sued the New Jersey Transit Corporation after a car accident in Philadelphia. The case asked if the transit agency is an arm of the state (a part of the state government). This status would give it sovereign immunity (protection from lawsuits). The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the transit agency is not an arm of the state. Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion. The Court reversed the lower court decision. This ruling means the transit agency can be sued in other states. It clarifies which government groups get special legal protections.

Vote: 9-0
Majority author: Sonia Sotomayor
Primary opinion: opinion

March 4, 2026OT 202524-777

Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, et al., Petitioners v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General

Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana fled El Salvador after a hitman threatened his family. He sought asylum (legal protection) after his relatives were shot. The case asks if federal courts must defer (give authority) to immigration officials. The Court held that federal courts must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' judgment. To reverse the agency, an applicant must show the evidence of persecution (severe mistreatment) was extremely compelling. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion. This decision clarifies how much power federal judges have to overturn immigration agency rulings. It sets a high bar for noncitizens trying to prove they faced persecution.

Immigration

Vote: 1-0
Majority author: Ketanji Brown Jackson
Primary opinion: opinion

March 2, 2026OT 202525A810

Mirabelli v. Bonta

The Supreme Court acted on an emergency request tied to California school gender-policy litigation. But the prompt does not provide enough detail to say more specifically what relief the Court granted or denied beyond issuing a per curiam decision.

Primary opinion: Opinion

March 2, 2026OT 202525-457

Topaz Johnson, et al., Petitioners v. High Desert State Prison, et al.

This case raised a practical question about filing fees for incarcerated people bringing joint civil suits. The materials provided do not include a merits decision explaining how the Supreme Court resolved that question.

Primary opinion: Opinion

February 25, 2026OT 202524-758

The GEO Group, Inc., Petitioner v. Alejandro Menocal, et al.

GEO Group runs a private immigration detention facility in Aurora, Colorado, under contract with ICE. Former detainee Alejandro Menocal filed a class action (a lawsuit for a group) over labor policies. GEO argued Yearsley protected it because contractors are not liable for work the government lawfully authorized and directed. The Court ruled 9-0 for Menocal. Justice Kagan wrote that denying Yearsley protection before trial is not immediately appealable. GEO must wait for a final judgment (the case’s end) before appealing. This means government contractors usually cannot pause cases for early appeals on this issue. They can raise the Yearsley defense later after the trial court finishes the case.

Immigration

Vote: 9-0
Majority author: Elena Kagan
Primary opinion: opinion

February 25, 2026OT 202524-557

David Asa Villarreal, Petitioner v. Texas

Villarreal was on trial for murder. During an overnight break, the judge told his lawyers not to discuss his ongoing testimony (statements given under oath). Villarreal argued this violated his Sixth Amendment (right to a lawyer). The Court ruled 9-0 on February 25, 2026, that the judge's order was constitutional. Justice Jackson wrote that judges may prevent lawyers from coaching a witness's testimony. The order was legal because it allowed discussions about trial strategy. This decision balances the right to legal counsel with the need for truthful evidence. It prevents lawyers from unfairly shaping a defendant's story during a trial.

First Amendment

Vote: 9-0
Majority author: Ketanji Brown Jackson
Primary opinion: opinion

February 24, 2026OT 202524-351

United States Postal Service, et al., Petitioners v. Lebene Konan

This case involved Lebene Konan and a Texas post office in a long dispute over mail delivery. Konan said Postal Service employees intentionally withheld mail from two rental properties she owned. She sued the United States after administrative complaints did not fix the problem. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception applied here. That exception keeps sovereign immunity (the government’s protection from being sued) for claims arising from the loss or miscarriage of mail. The Court said this protection covers intentional nondelivery of mail too. This matters because it shields the United States from lawsuits over mail not delivered, even when workers allegedly acted on purpose. It also reversed the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

Vote: 5-4
Majority author: Clarence Thomas
Primary opinion: opinion

February 24, 2026OT 202524-724

The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Sarah Palmquist, Individually and as Next Friend of E.P., a Minor, et al.

Grant and Sarah Palmquist sued Hain Celestial Group and Whole Foods Market in state court. The case involved complete diversity (the requirement that all parties be from different states). Defendants moved the case to federal court. The Court ruled 9-0 to throw out the trial verdict. Justice Sotomayor wrote that a federal court cannot create its own jurisdiction (legal power) through a mistake. Because a defendant was wrongly dismissed, the defect was never fixed. This decision ensures that federal courts do not expand their power beyond limits set by Congress. It protects the right of plaintiffs to choose their court.

Immigration Business and Regulation

Vote: 9-0
Majority author: Sonia Sotomayor
Primary opinion: Opinion of the Court - SS

February 20, 2026OT 202524-1287

Learning Resources, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al.

This case asked whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, lets the president impose tariffs (taxes on imports). The dispute involved tariffs President Trump imposed after declaring national emergencies. The Court considered whether that law gave him that power. The Court held 6-3 that IEEPA does not permit the president to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. The ruling said tariff power belongs to Congress unless Congress clearly gives it to the president. This matters because it limits presidential power over trade during emergencies. It also reinforces Congress’s constitutional role in setting taxes and tariffs.

Vote: 6-3
Majority author: John G. Roberts, Jr.
Primary opinion: opinion