Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case TrackerThe Court, in plain English

By term

October Term 2017 (2017–2018)

72 casesRecap
  • Before Arguments0
  • Awaiting Decision0
  • Decided72
  • Dismissed0
72 of 72 tracked cases in October Term 2017 (2017–2018) have a decision on the record.

Term tracker

Every published case, by stage

Decided Cases

72
DecidedFederal review of state convictionsMichael Sexton, Warden, Petitioner v. Nicholas BeaudreauxThe Supreme Court ruled for Warden Sexton, reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision that had overturned Nicholas Beaudreaux’s state conviction based on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. The Court held that the Ninth Circuit improperly reviewed the claim anew instead of giving the required deference to the state court’s decision under federal habeas law.Decided 17-1106DecidedPrayer during police detentionMary Anne Sause, Petitioner v. Timothy J. Bauer, et al.The Court ruled for Sause, vacating the Tenth Circuit’s judgment. It held that her self-represented complaint had to be read liberally and could state Fourth Amendment claims closely tied to her claim that officers ordered her to stop praying, so the officers’ qualified-immunity defense could not be resolved without considering those claims.Decided 17-742DecidedRace-based legislative mapsNorth Carolina, et al., Appellants v. Sandra Little Covington, et al.A group of North Carolina voters challenged state legislative districts they said were drawn mainly based on race, and the federal district court ordered replacement maps. The Supreme Court upheld court-drawn remedies for Senate districts 21 and 28 and House districts 21 and 57, but overturned the lower court’s actions concerning the legislature’s redrawing of House districts in Wake and Mecklenburg Counties.Decided 17-1364DecidedUnion fees and free speechJanus v. State, County, and Municipal EmployeesMark Janus challenged Illinois’s requirement that public employees who did not join a union pay agency fees—payments supporting the union’s contract negotiations. The Supreme Court ruled that collecting those fees without affirmative consent violates the First Amendment, overturned Abood’s rule, overturned the Seventh Circuit’s judgment, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 16-1466DecidedSpeech rules for pregnancy centersNational Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. BecerraThis case asked whether California could require anti-abortion pregnancy centers to give notices about state-provided reproductive health services, including abortion, and to disclose when a center was not licensed to provide medical services. The Supreme Court held that the centers were likely to succeed on their claim that these notice requirements violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections.Decided 16-1140DecidedPresidential travel banTrump v. HawaiiPresident Donald Trump’s Proclamation restricting entry from several countries was challenged by Hawaii and other plaintiffs as exceeding his immigration authority and violating the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded), finding the Proclamation lawful under immigration law and the plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim unlikely to succeed; it assumed without deciding that statutory claims could be reviewed and did not decide whether the global injunction was too broad.Decided 17-965DecidedCredit card merchant steeringOhio v. American Express Co.The Supreme Court ruled that American Express’s rules preventing merchants from steering cardholders toward cards that charged merchants less did not violate federal antitrust law. The Court agreed with the Second Circuit (affirmed), deciding that the government had to show harm to both merchants and cardholders in this market serving both groups, but showed harm only to merchants.Decided 16-1454DecidedRace in voting mapsGreg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al., Appellants v. Shannon Perez, et al.The Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the lower court’s redistricting orders and that the lower court wrongly required Texas to disprove discriminatory intent when the 2013 Legislature adopted plans based largely on court-drawn interim maps. The Court reversed the rulings invalidating several districts under the Voting Rights Act, but upheld the finding that State House District 90 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander; Texas largely prevailed.Decided 17-586DecidedAcquittals and repeat trialsCurrier v. VirginiaMichael Currier agreed to try his burglary and grand-larceny charges separately from a firearm-possession charge, and a jury acquitted him of the first two charges. The Supreme Court upheld Virginia’s judgment in a 5–4 decision, deciding that his agreement to separate the charges meant the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar the second trial and conviction.Decided 16-1348DecidedMilitary judges' dual rolesKeanu D. W. Ortiz, Petitioner v. United StatesThe Supreme Court ruled that it had authority to review decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. It agreed with the lower court (affirmed), deciding that Judge Martin T. Mitchell could serve at the same time on the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Military Commission Review without violating federal limits on military officers holding certain civil offices or the Constitution’s Appointments Clause (rules for appointing federal officers).Decided 16-1423DecidedMilitary judges on two courtsDalmazzi v. United StatesThe Supreme Court chose not to decide the dispute and ended its review (dismissed the writ of certiorari, its order agreeing to hear the case) as improvidently granted. The dispute concerned whether Judge Martin T. Mitchell could simultaneously serve on two military appeals courts in violation of federal law or the Constitution’s Appointments Clause (a rule for federal appointments), whether Supreme Court review was authorized, and whether the claims were moot (no longer a live dispute).Decided 16-961DecidedCell phone location privacyCarpenter v. United StatesThe FBI obtained historical cellphone records showing Timothy Carpenter’s location without a warrant, raising the question whether that violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 16-402DecidedLost profits from overseas patentsWesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.WesternGeco sought lost-profit damages from ION for foreign sales it said it lost after ION supplied components of its patented technology from the United States for assembly abroad. The Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit’s ruling that those damages were unavailable and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 16-1011DecidedMilitary judges on two courtsLaith G. Cox, Petitioner v. United StatesCox challenged Judge Martin T. Mitchell’s service on the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Military Commission Review at once, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’ finding that Cox’s claims were moot. The Supreme Court dismissed its review as improvidently granted (ended review without deciding the legal questions).Decided 16-1017DecidedRailroad taxes on employee stockWisconsin Central Ltd. v. United StatesThe case asked whether a railroad must pay Railroad Retirement Tax Act taxes on stock transferred to employees when they exercise stock options. The Supreme Court held that these stock options are not taxable under the Act because stock is not "money remuneration."Decided 17-530DecidedHow SEC judges are appointedRaymond J. Lucia, et al., Petitioners v. Securities and Exchange CommissionThe Court held that the SEC’s administrative law judges are "Officers of the United States," so their appointments must comply with the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. It reversed the D.C. Circuit and ruled for Lucia, requiring a new hearing before a properly appointed official because he timely challenged the judge’s appointment.Decided 17-130DecidedImmigration hearing noticesWescley Fonseca Pereira, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney GeneralThe Court ruled 8–1 for Pereira, holding that an immigration notice that does not state the specific time and place of a removal hearing is not a valid “notice to appear” under the statute and does not stop a noncitizen’s continuous-residence period for cancellation-of-removal eligibility. The Court reversed the First Circuit’s contrary decision.Decided 17-459DecidedSales tax on online salesSouth Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.South Dakota challenged a rule that barred the state from requiring online and other remote sellers, including Wayfair, to collect sales tax unless they had a physical presence there. The Supreme Court rejected that rule, overruled Quill and Bellas Hess as controlling precedents, wiped out the South Dakota Supreme Court’s judgment, and sent the case back to that court (remanded).Decided 17-494DecidedArrests over public criticismLozman v. Riviera BeachFane Lozman, a critic of Riviera Beach, claimed city officials planned to punish his lawsuits and public criticism by leading to his arrest at a council meeting, even though probable cause existed. The Supreme Court ruled that probable cause did not block his First Amendment retaliation claim (a claim that the government punished protected speech), wiped out the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling (vacated) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), without deciding the broader rule for all retaliatory-arrest cases.Decided 17-21DecidedPolitical retaliation in redistrictingBesinek v. LamoneRepublican Maryland voters alleged that state officials weakened their votes through partisan redistricting because they supported Republican candidates. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed (agreed with) the denial of a preliminary injunction (temporary court order) without deciding the underlying retaliation claims.Decided 17-333DecidedSentencing errors on appealRosales-Mireles v. United StatesFlorencio Rosales-Mireles pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, but his sentencing range was miscalculated due to an error in his criminal history score. The Supreme Court ruled that such a plain error affecting a defendant's substantial rights generally requires an appeals court to vacate the sentence, rejecting the lower court's overly restrictive standard.Decided 16-9493DecidedExplaining sentence reductionsAdaucto Chavez-Meza, Petitioner v. United StatesAfter federal sentencing guidelines changed, Adaucto Chavez-Meza asked for a lower sentence; the judge reduced it but chose a term above the bottom of the new range without explaining that choice in detail. The Supreme Court upheld the appeals court’s ruling, concluding that the record showed a reasoned basis for the judge’s decision.Decided 17-5639DecidedPartisan gerrymanderingGill v. WhitfordWisconsin voters challenged the state’s legislative map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the map was unlawful; it said the voters had not shown district-specific harm giving them the legal right to sue (standing), wiped out the lower court’s ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back (remanded) for further proceedings on that harm.Decided 16-1161DecidedPolitical clothing at pollsMinnesota Voters Alliance v. ManskyMinnesota Voters Alliance challenged Minnesota’s ban on political apparel at polling places under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court overturned the Eighth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to that court (remanded).Decided 16-1435DecidedCourts reviewing foreign lawsAnimal Science Products, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al.U.S. vitamin C buyers accused Chinese manufacturers, including Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical, of price-fixing and disputed whether courts must accept China’s interpretation of its own law. The Supreme Court wiped out the Second Circuit’s judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 16-1220DecidedLife insurance after divorceSveen v. MelinThis case considers whether the retroactive application of a Minnesota law that automatically revokes an ex-spouse's status as a life insurance beneficiary violates the Constitution's Contracts Clause. The Supreme Court ruled that the law does not violate the Contracts Clause because it does not substantially impair pre-existing contractual arrangements.Decided 16-1432DecidedClass action filing deadlinesChina Agritech, Inc. v. ReshThe case asked whether people who were unnamed members of an earlier proposed class action can file a new class action after the statute of limitations has run. The Supreme Court held that American Pipe tolling lets those class members bring individual claims later, but it does not let them start a successive class action outside the limitations period.Decided 17-432DecidedTribal fishing rightsWashington v. United StatesThis case is about whether treaties guaranteeing Northwest tribes the right to fish at their usual places require Washington to fix or replace state road culverts that block salmon from reaching tribal fishing grounds. The Ninth Circuit said the treaties protect enough fish to provide the tribes a moderate living, and the Supreme Court later affirmed that ruling by an equally divided Court.Decided 17-269DecidedRemoving inactive votersHusted v. A. Philip Randolph InstituteThe dispute concerned Ohio’s use of a voter’s inactivity to trigger a notice, followed by removal only if the voter did not respond and did not vote in two more federal elections. The Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s ruling (reversed it).Decided 16-980DecidedSentence reductions after plea dealsHughes v. United StatesThis case was about whether a federal defendant who accepted a plea deal for a specific sentence under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) can later ask for a reduced sentence when the Sentencing Commission lowers the applicable sentencing range. The Court held that the sentence is generally "based on" the Guidelines if the Guidelines range was part of the framework the judge used in accepting the plea or imposing the sentence.Decided 17-155DecidedDrug sentence reductionsKoons v. United StatesTimothy Koons and four other drug defendants sought further sentence cuts after sentencing guidelines were lowered; their sentences had already been reduced below required minimums because they helped the government. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the Eighth Circuit that they could not get another reduction because their sentences were based on the required minimums and their assistance, not the guideline ranges.Decided 17-5716DecidedFalse asset claims in bankruptcyLamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. ApplingAppling orally told Lamar, Archer & Cofrin that an expected tax refund would pay his legal fees; the firm challenged whether his debt could be erased in bankruptcy. The Court ruled that a statement about one asset can count when it bears directly on the debtor’s overall finances, and upheld the appeals court’s ruling for Appling.Decided 16-1215DecidedWedding cake and free speechMasterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'nJack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins because of his religious beliefs. The Supreme Court overturned the Colorado Court of Appeals’ ruling, deciding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s hostile treatment of Phillips’s religious beliefs violated the First Amendment’s protection for religious exercise.Decided 16-111DecidedWarrantless searches near homesCollins v. VirginiaIn this case, a police officer entered a home's driveway without a warrant to lift a tarp and search a motorcycle parked near the house. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception does not allow police to enter a home or its immediate surroundings without a warrant to search a vehicle.Decided 16-1027DecidedRestitution for private investigationsLagos v. United StatesSergio Fernando Lagos pled guilty to wire fraud and was ordered to pay restitution for expenses the victim incurred during its own private investigation and bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act only covers expenses related to government investigations and criminal proceedings, not private investigations or civil proceedings.Decided 16-1519DecidedStatements at probable cause hearingsCity of Hays v. VogtMatthew Vogt’s case asked whether the Fifth Amendment bars using a compelled statement at a probable-cause hearing—a pretrial hearing about whether there is enough reason to hold someone for trial—when the statement is not used at trial. The Supreme Court dismissed its earlier agreement to hear the case as improvidently granted (ending review without deciding that question).Decided 16-1495DecidedTribal immunity in property disputesUpper Skagit Tribe v. LundgrenThe Upper Skagit Indian Tribe and Sharline and Ray Lundgren disputed ownership of a strip of land between their adjacent Washington properties. The Supreme Court wiped out the Washington Supreme Court’s judgment and sent the case back (vacated and remanded), saying an earlier tax case did not decide whether tribal sovereign immunity applies in lawsuits over property.Decided 17-387DecidedWorkers suing togetherEpic Systems Corp. v. LewisThe Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce agreements requiring employees to resolve workplace disputes individually through arbitration (a private dispute-resolution process), rather than through class or collective proceedings, despite the National Labor Relations Act. It overturned the Seventh Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 16-285DecidedPrivacy in rental carsByrd v. United StatesThis case is about whether police may search a rental car without a warrant when the driver has the renter’s permission to use the car but is not listed on the rental agreement. The Court held that being left off the rental contract alone does not take away an otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy in the car.Decided 16-1371DecidedRight to choose a defenseMcCoy v. LouisianaThe Supreme Court ruled that Robert McCoy had the Sixth Amendment right to choose his defense and stop his lawyer from admitting guilt, even if the lawyer believed that strategy might avoid the death penalty. The Court overturned the Louisiana Supreme Court’s judgment and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded).Decided 16-8255DecidedState power over sports bettingMurphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.New Jersey challenged PASPA, a federal law that barred states from changing or repealing their bans on sports betting. The Supreme Court overturned the Third Circuit’s judgment upholding PASPA.Decided 16-476DecidedLimits on wiretap ordersDahda v. United StatesThe Dahda brothers asked courts to exclude evidence gathered under wiretap orders approved by a federal judge in Kansas, arguing the orders went beyond the judge’s territorial authority. The Supreme Court reached the same result as the appeals court (affirmed its ruling), but said the orders were not invalid on their face: they contained the information required by law, and extra language allowing interception outside the judge’s territory did not invalidate them.Decided 17-43DecidedShackling before trialUnited States v. Sanchez-GomezRene Sanchez-Gomez and other criminal defendants challenged a federal district court policy generally requiring in-custody defendants to appear in full physical restraints at pretrial, nonjury proceedings. The Supreme Court wiped out the appeals court’s judgment and sent the case back to the lower court (vacated and remanded).Decided 17-312DecidedDeciding all patent claimsSAS Institute Inc. v. IancuIn a patent review brought by SAS Institute, the dispute was whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could decide only some challenged claims or had to decide them all. The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court’s ruling and sent the case back to it (reversed and remanded).Decided 16-969DecidedPatent office power over patentsOil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLCOil States Energy Services argued that the Patent and Trademark Office’s process for reviewing issued patent claims must use a federal court and jury. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court, ruling that the process does not violate the Constitution’s federal-court or jury-trial requirements.Decided 16-712DecidedCompany liability for abusesJesner v. Arab Bank, PLCSurvivors and relatives of people killed in attacks sued Jordan-based Arab Bank, alleging it helped finance terrorist groups; the Supreme Court agreed with the Second Circuit (affirmed), leaving in place its ruling that the Alien Tort Statute does not allow lawsuits against foreign corporations.Decided 16-499DecidedWarrants for overseas emailsUnited States v. Microsoft Corp.This case concerned whether Microsoft had to turn over a customer's emails to the federal government under a Stored Communications Act warrant when the emails were stored on servers outside the United States. After Congress passed the CLOUD Act and the government obtained a new warrant, the Supreme Court did not decide that issue and instead vacated the lower-court judgment and sent the case back as moot.Decided 17-2DecidedFederal review of state rulingsWilson v. SellersThe Supreme Court overturned the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling and sent Wilson’s case back to it (remanded). It said a federal court reviewing a prisoner’s challenge should presume an unexplained state ruling used the reasons in the last related state decision that explained its ruling, unless the state shows it likely relied on different grounds.Decided 16-6855DecidedVague deportation rulesSessions v. DimayaThe Supreme Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit and left in place its ruling that 18 U.S.C. §16(b)—a definition used in immigration cases to identify crimes that can lead to removal—was too unclear under the Constitution to be used against Dimaya.Decided 15-1498DecidedOvertime pay for service advisorsEncino Motorcars, LLC v. NavarroHector Navarro and other service advisors at Encino Motorcars sought overtime pay under federal law, raising whether their jobs qualified for an exemption for some dealership workers. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to that court (remanded).Decided 16-1362DecidedPolice shooting immunityAndrew Kisela, Petitioner v. Amy HughesPolice officer Andrew Kisela shot Amy Hughes while she was holding a knife; the dispute was whether the shooting violated clearly established law and denied him qualified immunity. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s decision and sent the case back to that court (remanded).Decided 17-467DecidedAppeals in combined lawsuitsHall v. HallThis case was about whether lawsuits that have been consolidated for trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) still keep their separate identities for purposes of appeal. The Supreme Court held that when one of the consolidated cases ends in a final judgment, the losing party may appeal right away even if the other consolidated case or cases are still ongoing.Decided 16-1150DecidedObstructing IRS investigationsMarinello v. United StatesThe case asked whether prosecutors had to show Carlo Marinello knew an IRS action, such as an audit or investigation, was pending when he allegedly obstructed tax-law enforcement. The Supreme Court overturned the Second Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 16-1144DecidedFunding for death row appealsAyestas v. DavisCarlos Ayestas, who was sentenced to death in Texas, sought federal funds to investigate a claim that his trial lawyer was ineffective, which his state habeas lawyer had not raised. The Supreme Court wiped out the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to that court (vacated and remanded).Decided 16-6795DecidedSecurities lawsuits in state courtsCyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement FundBeaver County Employees Retirement Fund brought a class action against Cyan in California state court, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933; Cyan argued that federal law barred state courts from hearing the case and allowed it to be moved to federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the California appeals court that state courts can hear class actions alleging only those claims and that defendants cannot move them to federal court under that law.Decided 15-1439DecidedBankruptcy insider statusU. S. Bank N. A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLCU.S. Bank challenged a Chapter 11 plan after a buyer voted on a claim originally held by an insider, arguing the buyer should also count as an insider. The Supreme Court unanimously left the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in place (affirmed), deciding that a bankruptcy judge’s finding of nonstatutory insider status is reviewed for clear error—a clear mistake.Decided 15-1509DecidedCongress ordering lawsuits dismissedPatchak v. ZinkeDavid Patchak challenged the Interior Department’s authority to place the Bradley Property in trust, and Congress later ordered courts to dismiss lawsuits related to that property. The Supreme Court agreed with the D.C. Circuit (affirmed its ruling).Decided 16-498DecidedBond hearings for immigrantsJennings v. RodriguezImmigrants held during removal proceedings challenged whether federal law requires bond hearings after six months, including for people subject to mandatory detention. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to that court (remanded).Decided 15-1204DecidedProtection for bankruptcy transfersMerit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.FTI, Valley View Downs’ trustee, sought to recover a payment Valley View made to Merit Management for shares; Merit argued banks’ role triggered a Bankruptcy Code rule protecting some transfers. The Supreme Court ruled intermediary banks did not trigger the rule, agreed with the Seventh Circuit, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 16-784DecidedLawyer fees from prisoner awardsMurphy v. SmithThis case asked how much of a prisoner’s damages award must be used to pay attorney’s fees in a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2). The Supreme Court held that courts must apply as much of the judgment as needed, up to 25 percent, rather than choosing any lower amount at their discretion.Decided 16-1067DecidedChallenging laws after guilty pleasClass v. United StatesRodney Class’s case raised whether pleading guilty barred him from challenging the law underlying his conviction as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court’s judgment and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 16-424DecidedWhistleblower retaliation protectionDigital Realty Trust, Inc. v. SomersPaul Somers alleged that Digital Realty Trust fired him after he reported possible securities-law violations to company managers, but he had not reported them to the SEC. The Supreme Court ruled that Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation protection covers only people who report alleged violations to the SEC, overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 16-1276DecidedSeizing Iranian government assetsRubin v. Islamic Republic of IranPeople holding terrorism-related judgments against Iran sought to seize Iranian property under Section 1610(g), even if no other provision of Section 1610 allowed seizure. The Supreme Court agreed with the Seventh Circuit that Section 1610(g) is not enough on its own and affirmed its ruling; creditors must meet a separate exception to the law’s protection of foreign-state property.Decided 16-534DecidedLifetime retiree health benefitsCNH Industrial N.V., et al., Petitioners v. Jack Reese, et al.The Court unanimously ruled for CNH Industrial, holding that the Sixth Circuit improperly relied on special inferences to treat the collective-bargaining agreement as ambiguous and to find lifetime retiree health benefits. The agreement had to be interpreted under ordinary contract-law principles, and its terms ended the health benefits when the agreement expired in 2004 rather than vesting them for life.Decided 17-515DecidedPausing filing deadlinesArtis v. District of ColumbiaThe dispute was whether the deadline for Stephanie Artis to refile her state-law claims against the District of Columbia paused while her federal case was pending, or whether she had only 30 days after dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled that the deadline paused during the federal case and for 30 days afterward, overturned the D.C. Court of Appeals’ decision (reversed it), and sent the case back (remanded).Decided 16-460DecidedArrests for trespassingDistrict of Columbia v. WesbyPolice arrested people partying in a vacant home after its owner said he had not allowed anyone to enter; the partygoers said someone else had invited them. The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court’s judgment and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 15-1485DecidedEPA water rule reviewNational Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of DefenseThe Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to it (remanded), deciding that challenges to the EPA’s Clean Water Act rule defining which waters are covered must be filed in federal district courts, not federal appeals courts.Decided 16-299Case remandedRacial bias in death sentencesKeith Tharpe, Petitioner v. Eric Sellers, WardenThe Court ruled for Keith Tharpe, holding that he was entitled to a certificate of appealability because a juror’s affidavit containing racist statements gave substantial reason to question whether racial bias affected the death-sentence verdict. The Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back for further consideration of whether the judgment should be reopened under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).Remanded 17-6075DecidedDACA records and discoveryIn Re United StatesThe federal government asked the Supreme Court to stop a district court from requiring a fuller record in a lawsuit challenging its decision to wind down Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), and from addressing related discovery disputes. The Court treated the request as a request for Supreme Court review and agreed to hear it, wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s judgment (vacated it), and sent the case back for more proceedings (remanded it).Decided 17-801DecidedAppeal deadline extensionsHamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of ChicagoCharmaine Hamer filed her appeal within a deadline extended by the district court, but the Seventh Circuit threw it out, treating a limit in an appellate rule as restricting its power to hear the case. The Supreme Court wiped out the Seventh Circuit’s judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back for further proceedings (remanded).Decided 16-658DecidedMental ability to face executionJefferson Dunn, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Petitioner v. Vernon MadisonVernon Madison, an Alabama death-row prisoner who had suffered strokes and could not remember the crime, argued that he was not mentally able to be executed. The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court’s ruling, finding Alabama’s decision that Madison was mentally able to be executed was not unreasonable enough for a federal court to grant relief; it did not decide whether a state may execute someone who cannot remember the crime.Decided 17-193DecidedChanging a plea dealScott Kernan, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Petitioner v. Michael Daniel CueroThe Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), ruling that its earlier decisions did not clearly establish that a state court must impose the lower sentence Cuero expected under his plea deal in a federal challenge to his state sentence. The dispute followed California’s change to the charges to seek a higher sentence and Cuero’s request for the lower sentence.Decided 16-1468