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

By term

October Term 2020 (2020–2021)

64 casesRecap
  • Before Arguments0
  • Awaiting Decision0
  • Decided64
  • Dismissed0
64 of 64 tracked cases in October Term 2020 (2020–2021) have a decision on the record.

Term tracker

Every published case, by stage

Decided Cases

64
DecidedReligious freedom in foster careFulton v. PhiladelphiaThe Supreme Court ruled that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause (protection for religious practice) by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS) for foster-care work unless CSS certified same-sex couples as foster parents. It overturned (reversed) the Third Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), without deciding whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled.Decided 19-123DecidedTribal COVID relief eligibilityYellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis ReservationThis case asked whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations could share in the CARES Act money Congress set aside for "Tribal governments" to cover COVID-19 costs. The Supreme Court held that these corporations count as "Indian tribes" under the statute Congress incorporated, so they are eligible for that funding.Decided 20-543DecidedPower to fire agency headsCollins v. YellenThis case arose from shareholders’ challenge to the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s handling of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while they were in federal conservatorship, especially a Treasury-FHFA agreement that redirected the companies’ profits to the government. The Court considered both whether that challenge was barred by the housing statute and whether FHFA’s leadership structure—an independent agency headed by a single director removable only for cause—was unconstitutional.Decided 19-422DecidedVoting rules and discriminationBrnovich v. Democratic National CommitteeThis case was about whether two Arizona voting rules unlawfully burden minority voters: a rule refusing to count ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day, and a law limiting who may collect and return another person’s early mail ballot. The Supreme Court upheld both rules.Decided 19-1257DecidedHealth insurance mandateCalifornia v. TexasThis case asked whether challengers to the Affordable Care Act could attack the law’s individual mandate after Congress reduced the penalty for not having insurance to $0, and if so, whether that made the mandate unconstitutional and required the rest of the ACA to fall with it. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case.Decided 19-840DecidedWho appoints patent judgesUnited States v. Arthrex, Inc.This case asked whether administrative patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could constitutionally issue final decisions invalidating patents even though they were appointed by the Secretary of Commerce rather than by the President with Senate confirmation. It also raised what the proper remedy should be if that arrangement violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.Decided 19-1434DecidedPublic access to agency draftsUnited States Fish and Wildlife Ser v. v. Sierra Club, Inc.The Supreme Court decided that the Freedom of Information Act’s deliberative-process privilege (protection for unfinished advice used in agency decision-making) can shield draft biological opinions prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service before a final decision, even when they express the agencies’ latest views. The Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Sierra Club’s records dispute and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded) for further proceedings.Decided 19-547DecidedDeath penalty mitigating evidenceShinn v. KayerThe case concerns an Arizona death-row inmate’s claim that his lawyers were ineffective at the sentencing stage for failing to properly investigate and present mitigating evidence. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Ninth Circuit wrongly granted federal habeas relief by failing to give the state court the deference required under AEDPA.Decided 19-1302DecidedReview of state court rulingsDunn v. ReevesThe case concerned whether the Eleventh Circuit wrongly found that an Alabama court used an unreasonable rule when it rejected Matthew Reeves’s claims that his lawyers did not adequately represent him. The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court’s judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings (remanded).Decided 20-1084Case remandedWater rules and religious freedomMast v. Fillmore CountyAmos Mast and other Amish residents challenged Fillmore County’s water-treatment rules under RLUIPA, saying the rules burdened their religious practices. The Supreme Court wiped out the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ ruling (vacated it) and sent the case back to that court (remanded it) to reconsider in light of *Fulton v. Philadelphia*; it did not decide the RLUIPA questions.Remanded 20-7028DecidedNonprofit donor privacyAmericans for Prosperity Foundation v. BontaThe California attorney general’s office required charities to give the state the names and addresses of major donors, saying the information helped investigate charitable fraud. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), ruling that the requirement could not stand under the First Amendment because it was not closely fitted to an important government interest.Decided 19-251DecidedPipeline companies taking state landPennEast Pipeline Co. v. New JerseyPennEast Pipeline sought to use federal eminent domain to obtain land rights from New Jersey for a natural-gas pipeline. The Court overturned the lower court and sent the case back (reversed and remanded), ruling that the Natural Gas Act allows federally approved pipeline companies to condemn needed land owned by states or private parties.Decided 19-1039DecidedChallenging a patent after transferMinerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.This case asked whether an inventor who assigned patent rights, and a company founded by that inventor, could later defend against an infringement suit by arguing that the patent was invalid. The Court kept the doctrine of assignor estoppel but limited it, holding that it bars an invalidity defense only when the challenge contradicts representations the assignor made when transferring the patent.Decided 20-440DecidedJohnson v. Guzman ChavezThe Supreme Court overturned the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and decided that 8 U.S.C. §1231, rather than §1226, governs the detention of Guzman Chavez and other noncitizens whose earlier removal orders were reinstated. The ruling covers people pursuing withholding or deferral of removal—protections they seek when they fear persecution or torture if sent to a particular country.Decided 19-897DecidedPolice force on restrained peopleLombardo v. St. LouisThis case is about whether St. Louis police used too much force after arresting Nicholas Gilbert, when officers handcuffed and shackled him in a holding cell, pinned him face-down, and pressed on his back until heDecided 20-391DecidedWhen property-taking claims are readyPakdel v. City and County of San FranciscoThis case arose after San Francisco required the owners of a unit in a building being converted to condominiums to offer their tenant a lifetime lease, and the owners claimed that condition amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property. The Supreme Court considered whether their federal takings claim was ready to be heard once the city had definitively denied them an exemption, or whether they first had to keep pursuing additional local administrative procedures.Decided 20-1212DecidedGaps in refinery exemptionsHollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn.This case was about the Renewable Fuel Standard and whether small oil refineries can receive a hardship exemption from blending renewable fuels even if their exemption had lapsed in earlier years. The Court held that a refinery may still obtain an "extension" of its exemption despite a prior gap in coverage.Decided 20-472DecidedReal harm for class actionsTransUnion LLC v. RamirezThis case asked whether people may recover damages in federal court under the Fair Credit Reporting Act when a credit reporting agency incorrectly labeled them as possible matches to a government terrorist list, even if many of them never had that misleading information sent to anyone else. The Court held that only class members who suffered a concrete, real-world injury—such as having the misleading credit report shared with a third party—had Article III standing to seek damages.Decided 20-297DecidedCollege athlete benefitsNational Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. AlstonThis case asked whether the NCAA can limit the education-related benefits that colleges give student-athletes without violating federal antitrust law. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling that those limits unlawfully restrained competition under §1 of the Sherman Act.Decided 20-512DecidedWarrantless home entryLange v. CaliforniaThis case asked whether a police officer may enter a home or attached garage without a warrant while chasing someone suspected of a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court held that chasing a fleeing misdemeanant does not automatically create an emergency under the Fourth Amendment; courts must look at the specific facts of each case.Decided 20-18DecidedUnion access to private landCedar Point Nursery v. HassidThe Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to that court (reversed and remanded), deciding that California’s rule allowing union organizers limited access to Cedar Point Nursery’s property is a per se physical taking (a government appropriation of property requiring payment under the Fifth Amendment). The Court said the rule takes growers’ right to exclude others, even though access is temporary.Decided 20-107DecidedStock fraud class actionsGoldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement SystemShareholders accused Goldman Sachs and several executives of misleading investors about conflicts of interest in a securities-fraud class action. The Court decided that judges may consider how general the statements were when deciding whether shareholders may proceed together and that Goldman must prove, more likely than not, that the statements did not affect its stock price; it wiped out the Second Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to that court (vacated and remanded), without deciding whether the class should be certified.Decided 20-222DecidedCorporate liability for overseas abusesNestlé USA, Inc. v. DoePeople who said they were forced to work as children on cocoa farms in Côte d’Ivoire accused Nestlé USA of aiding forced labor and sued under the Alien Tort Statute (a federal law allowing certain foreign citizens to bring international-law claims in U.S. courts). The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded), without finally deciding Nestlé USA’s liability.Decided 19-416DecidedGuilty pleas and felon statusUnited States v. GaryThis case considers whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm is automatically entitled to relief if the trial court failed to inform him that knowing his felon status was an element of the crime. The Supreme Court ruled that defendants must show this error actually affected the outcome of their proceedings to receive relief.Decided 20-444DecidedAppeal review beyond trial recordsGreer v. United StatesThis case asked how federal appeals courts should handle unpreserved errors after Rehaif clarified that, in felon-in-possession cases, the government must prove the defendant knew he was a felon. The Court held that on plain-error review, an appellate court may look beyond the trial record, and a defendant is not entitled to relief without showing a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different if the Rehaif error had not occurred.Decided 19-8709DecidedCrack cocaine sentence cutsTerry v. United StatesThis case was about whether people convicted before August 3, 2010 of low-level crack cocaine offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) could get shorter sentences under the First Step Act. The Supreme Court held that they could not, because that subsection’s statutory penalties were not changed by the Fair Sentencing Act.Decided 20-5904DecidedReckless crimes and gun sentencesBorden v. United StatesThis case asked whether a prior crime committed with a reckless mental state counts as a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which increases sentences for some firearm offenders with certain prior convictions. The Supreme Court held that offenses based only on recklessness do not qualify under ACCA’s elements clause.Decided 19-5410DecidedGreen cards after unlawful entrySanchez v. MayorkasThe Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the lower court (affirmed) that Jose Sanchez, who entered the United States unlawfully and later received Temporary Protected Status, cannot use that status alone to become a lawful permanent resident. The Court said the law generally requires lawful entry after immigration inspection and authorization, and TPS does not erase an earlier unlawful entry.Decided 20-315DecidedTruth of asylum testimonyGarland v. Ming DaiIn Garland v. Ming Dai, the Court rejected a Ninth Circuit rule that treated an asylum applicant’s testimony as true without an explicit finding that it lacked credibility. The Court wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s ruling (vacated) and sent the case back for further proceedings (remanded).Decided 19-1155DecidedTribal police search powersUnited States v. CooleyThe Court ruled that tribal police may briefly detain and search non-Indians on public roads through a reservation when state or federal law may have been violated. It wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (vacated and remanded).Decided 19-1414DecidedChallenges to deportation ordersUnited States v. Palomar-SantiagoThis case asked whether a person charged with illegally returning to the United States can attack the validity of an earlier deportation order without meeting all of the statutory requirements for that kind of challenge. It arose after Palomar-Santiago argued that his original removal was invalid because the drunk-driving conviction used to deport him was later held not to be a removable aggravated felony.Decided 20-437Case remandedPolice entry without a warrantSanders v. United StatesThis case is about whether police could enter Kenneth Sanders’s home without a warrant during a welfare check after reports of a domestic fight and hearing a child crying inside. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Eighth Circuit’s judgment, and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Caniglia v. Strom, which rejected using the community-caretaking doctrine to justify warrantless entry into a home.Remanded 20-6400DecidedAppeal cost awardsSan Antonio v. Hotels.com, L. P.After online travel companies won an appeal in a tax dispute with San Antonio and other Texas cities, they sought more than $2.3 million in appellate costs for supersedeas-bond premiums. The case asked who decides whether those appeal-related costs must be awarded under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e): the district court or the court of appeals.Decided 20-334DecidedPollution cleanup settlementsGuam v. United StatesGuam sought to make the United States help pay for cleaning up the Ordot Dump, a landfill the Navy created and used for decades. The case asked whether a 2004 consent decree settling Clean Water Act claims against Guam also triggered CERCLA’s contribution provisions and blocked Guam from later suing the federal government under CERCLA to recover cleanup costs.Decided 20-382DecidedJury rules for old convictionsEdwards v. VannoyThis case determines whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, which requires unanimous jury verdicts for serious crimes, applies retroactively to defendants whose convictions are already final. The Court concluded that the unanimous jury rule does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.Decided 19-5807DecidedAppeals of court transfersBP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of BaltimoreBaltimore sued several energy companies in state court over the environmental harms of fossil fuels, and the companies tried to move the case to federal court on several grounds, including the federal-officer removal statute. The Supreme Court considered how much of a remand order a federal court of appeals may review when removal was based in part on that statute.Decided 19-1189DecidedIRS reporting requirementsCIC Servs., LLC v. IRSIn a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act does not prevent lawsuits challenging IRS regulatory mandates, such as reporting requirements, even if failing to comply results in a tax penalty. The Court determined that a suit contesting the legality of a regulation is not the same as a suit seeking to stop the collection of a tax.Decided 19-930DecidedPolice entry during welfare checksCaniglia v. StromThis case asked whether police may enter a home and seize firearms without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment’s so-called “community caretaking” doctrine after responding to a welfare check involving concerns that Edward Caniglia might harm himself. The Supreme Court held that this exception, which had been recognized in the vehicle context, does not extend to the home.Decided 20-157DecidedOne immigration hearing noticeNiz-Chavez v. GarlandThis case asked whether the government can cut off a noncitizen’s time toward eligibility for cancellation of removal by sending hearing information in multiple notices, or whether it must provide all required information in one notice to appear. The Court held that the stop-time rule is triggered only by a single document containing all the information the statute requires, including the time and place of the hearing.Decided 19-863DecidedFederal review of old convictionsAlaska v. WrightThis case asked whether Sean Wright could use a federal habeas petition to challenge his old Alaska sex-abuse convictions after he had fully finished serving that state sentence, based on the fact that those convictions later led to federal sex-offender-registration consequences. The Supreme Court held that he could not, because he was no longer "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court" once the Alaska sentence had expired.Decided 20-940DecidedFTC power to recover moneyAMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTCThis case asked whether the Federal Trade Commission can use Section 13(b) of the FTC Act to go straight to federal court not only for an injunction, but also to recover money from companies accused of deceptive practices. The dispute arose after the FTC won a large monetary award against Scott Tucker and his payday lending businesses for allegedly misleading consumers.Decided 19-508DecidedLife without parole for juvenilesJones v. MississippiThis case involved Brett Jones, who was 15 when he killed his grandfather and was later resentenced to life without parole after the Court’s juvenile sentencing decisions in Miller and Montgomery. The Supreme Court considered whether the Constitution requires a judge to make a separate finding that a juvenile offender is permanently incorrigible before imposing life without parole.Decided 18-1259DecidedDisability judge appointment challengesCarr v. SaulThis case asked whether people seeking Social Security disability benefits can challenge the constitutional appointment of the administrative law judge who denied their claims if they did not raise that issue during the agency process. The Supreme Court held that they do not lose that argument by failing to present it in their administrative proceedings.Decided 19-1442DecidedUse of copyrighted computer codeGoogle LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.This case involves a copyright dispute over Google's use of Oracle's Java programming code. The Supreme Court ruled that Google's limited copying of the Java API constituted a fair use under copyright law.Decided 18-956DecidedBlocking critics on social mediaBiden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Uni v.This case concerned whether President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking critics from his personal Twitter account after using that account to communicate official government business. The Supreme Court granted review but then vacated the lower court’s decision and sent the case back with instructions to dismiss it as moot after the change in administration and the loss of Trump’s Twitter account.Decided 20-197DecidedMedia ownership rulesFCC v. Prometheus Radio ProjectThis case was about the FCC’s decision to repeal or loosen several long-standing media ownership rules that limited common ownership of newspapers, radio stations, and television stations in the same market. The dispute was whether the FCC reasonably concluded that changing those rules fit current market conditions and would not likely harm minority and female ownership.Decided 19-1231DecidedAutomated text messagesFacebook, Inc. v. DuguidThe case asked whether Facebook’s login-alert text messaging system counts as an automatic telephone dialing system under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, after Facebook sent unwanted security texts to Noah Duguid. The Supreme Court ultimately held that a device is an autodialer only if it uses a random or sequential number generator to store or produce phone numbers.Decided 19-511DecidedMays v. HinesThis case asked whether a federal appeals court went too far in overturning Anthony Hines’s Tennessee murder conviction and death sentence on habeas review based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Circuit improperly second-guessed the state court’s finding that Hines was not prejudiced by his lawyer’s alleged failures, despite strong evidence of guilt.Decided 20-507DecidedWhere companies can be suedFord Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist.The Court considered whether Montana and Minnesota courts could hear product-liability suits against Ford when the crashes happened in those states and Ford extensively marketed, sold, and serviced the same vehicle models there, even though the particular cars involved were first sold elsewhere. The Court held that those state courts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Ford.Decided 19-368DecidedPolice force without detentionTorres v. MadridIn Roxanne Torres’s lawsuit over police force, the Supreme Court decided that intentionally applying physical force to restrain someone is a Fourth Amendment seizure, even if the person escapes or is not subdued. The Court wiped out the Tenth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to the lower court (vacated and remanded).Decided 19-292DecidedPereida v. WilkinsonJosé Pereida, a nonpermanent resident seeking to cancel his removal order, had a state conviction under a law covering several crimes. The Court agreed with the lower court (affirmed), ruling that he had to show the conviction was not disqualifying; an unclear record did not meet that burden.Decided 19-438DecidedSuing officers after government lossBrownback v. KingThis case asked whether a plaintiff who loses a Federal Tort Claims Act suit against the United States can still pursue a Bivens damages claim against the individual federal officers over the same incident. The dispute turned on whether the FTCA’s "judgment bar" applies when the FTCA claim was dismissed because the complaint did not establish a valid claim under state tort law.Decided 19-546DecidedForeign governments' property seizuresFederal Republic of Germany v. PhilippThe Supreme Court ruled that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s exception allowing U.S. courts to hear claims about property taken in violation of international law does not apply to Germany’s alleged taking of its own citizens’ property within Germany. It wiped out the appeals court’s judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings (vacated and remanded), rather than ending the entire lawsuit.Decided 19-351DecidedHolocaust property lawsuitsRepublic of Hungary v. SimonThis case involves Holocaust survivors and their heirs suing Hungary and its national railway in U.S. courts for property allegedly seized during World War II. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s ruling and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, which addressed when the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allows such suits against foreign governments.Decided 18-1447DecidedCourt review of benefit denialsSalinas v. Railroad Retirement Bd.Manfredo Salinas asked the Railroad Retirement Board to reopen its denial of his disability benefits, but the Board refused. The Supreme Court ruled that the refusal is subject to court review, overturned the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded).Decided 19-199DecidedWho decides what gets arbitratedHenry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.The case concerned whether an arbitration agreement involving Henry Schein and Archer & White could send questions about the agreement’s scope to an arbitrator even though it excluded some claims from arbitration. The Supreme Court declined to decide that issue and dismissed (ended) its review as improvidently granted, leaving the main legal question without a ruling in this case.Decided 19-963DecidedChoosing an execution stateUnited States v. HiggsHiggs challenged whether federal law let a court choose Indiana for his execution after Maryland abolished the death penalty. The Supreme Court overturned the district court’s order, sent the case to the Fourth Circuit (remanded it) with instructions to return it to the district court to promptly choose Indiana, and wiped out the appeals court’s pause on the execution (stay).Decided 20-927DecidedBankruptcy and seized carsChicago v. FultonThis case asked whether Chicago violated the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay by keeping cars it had impounded before the owners filed for bankruptcy. The Supreme Court held that simply holding onto the cars after the bankruptcy filing, without taking further action, does not by itself violate the automatic stay.Decided 19-357DecidedCensus counts for House seatsTrump v. New YorkPresident Donald Trump’s July 21, 2020 memorandum directed the Commerce Secretary to provide census information that could support excluding people without lawful immigration status from the population used to divide House seats among the states. The Supreme Court vacated (wiped out) the District Court’s judgment and remanded (sent the case back to the lower court) with instructions to dismiss (throw out) the case for lack of jurisdiction (legal authority to hear it), so it did not decide whether the memorandum was lawful.Decided 20-366DecidedMoney damages for religious freedomTanzin v. TanvirThis case asked whether Muslim men who said FBI agents put them on the No Fly List after they refused to act as informants could recover money damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Supreme Court held that RFRA allows suits for money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities when appropriate.Decided 19-71DecidedPharmacy drug reimbursement rulesRutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn.The Supreme Court overturned the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded), deciding that Arkansas’s Act 900 is not preempted (overridden) by ERISA. The law regulates how pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) reimburse pharmacies for prescription drugs, and the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association challenged it.Decided 18-540DecidedMilitary rape charge deadlinesUnited States v. BriggsThe Supreme Court ruled that Michael Briggs’s military rape prosecution was timely under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), even though it began more than five years after the alleged conduct. It overturned the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded), deciding that the UCMJ’s no-deadline rule for offenses “punishable by death” covered rape.Decided 19-108DecidedParty balance on state courtsCarney v. AdamsJames Adams challenged Delaware rules requiring political balance on certain state courts. The Court ruled that Adams lacked standing (the legal right to sue) because he had not shown he was ready to seek a judicial vacancy soon. It wiped out the Third Circuit’s judgment (vacated) and sent the case back (remanded) without deciding the rules’ constitutionality.Decided 19-309DecidedPrison conditions and legal immunityTaylor v. RiojasTrent Taylor said Texas prison officials kept him naked for six days in cells contaminated with feces and sewage, violating the Eighth Amendment; the Fifth Circuit gave the officials legal protection from damages (qualified immunity) because earlier cases involved longer confinement. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Taylor’s case, wiped out the appeals court’s ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings (remanded it).Decided 19-1261