Skip to main content

Supreme Court Case TrackerThe Court, in plain English

Find a case
Topics

Home
Cases
October Term 2017 (2017–2018)
Page 2

By term

October Term 2017 (2017–2018)

October Term 2017·72 cases·Page 2

All cases
Latest updates
Upcoming arguments
Awaiting decision
Recent decisions
OT 2026

Before Arguments
Awaiting Decision
Decided
Dismissed

Supreme Court Case Tracker

The Supreme Court, with the doors open.

supremecourtcasetracker.com

Find a case
Topics
Glossary
About
Methodology
Contact
Privacy
Terms
Accessibility

Independent, unofficial, and ad-free. Not affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States.

AI-generated illustrations are labeled where they appear.

© 2026 Odin LLC

Search

49–72 of 72 cases · October Term 2017 · by latest update

PreviousPage 2 of 2Next

StatusCaseDateDocket

DecidedWorkers 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 May 21, 201816-285 DecidedAppeal 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 Nov 8, 201716-658 DecidedEPA 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 Jan 22, 201816-299 DecidedSeizing 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 Feb 21, 201816-534 DecidedProtection 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 Feb 27, 201816-784 DecidedBankruptcy 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 Mar 5, 201815-1509 DecidedSecurities 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 Mar 20, 201815-1439 DecidedFunding 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 Mar 21, 201816-6795 DecidedLimits 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 May 14, 201817-43 DecidedShackling 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 May 14, 201817-312 DecidedStatements 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 May 29, 201816-1495 DecidedDrug 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 Jun 4, 201817-5716 DecidedFalse 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 Jun 4, 201816-1215 DecidedWedding 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 Jun 4, 201816-111 DecidedRemoving 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 Jun 11, 201816-980 DecidedPolitical 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 Jun 14, 201816-1435 DecidedPartisan 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 Jun 18, 201816-1161 DecidedCell 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 Jun 22, 201816-402 DecidedLost 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 Jun 22, 201816-1011 DecidedCourts 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 Jun 14, 201816-1220 DecidedMilitary 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 Jun 22, 201816-1017 DecidedRace-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 Jun 28, 201817-1364 DecidedPolice 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 Apr 2, 201817-467 DecidedChanging 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 Nov 6, 201716-1468

1
2

Next

Search

Search by case name, topic, or docket number.