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

By term

October Term 2021 (2021–2022)

42 casesRecap
  • Before Arguments0
  • Awaiting Decision0
  • Decided42
  • Dismissed0
42 of 42 tracked cases in October Term 2021 (2021–2022) have a decision on the record.

Term tracker

Every published case, by stage

Decided Cases

42
DecidedCIA secrets in courtUnited States v. ZubaydahThis case was about whether Abu Zubaydah could obtain testimony from former CIA contractors for use in a Polish investigation into his alleged mistreatment at a CIA site in Poland. The United States argued that letting discovery go forward would reveal state secrets by confirming or denying the existence of a clandestine CIA facility there.Decided 20-827DecidedEPA power over carbon emissionsWest Virginia v. EPAThis case examines whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by mandating a shift in the nation's electricity generation mix. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA lacks this broad authority without clear congressional authorization under the major questions doctrine.Decided 20-1530DecidedWar powers and state lawsuitsTorres v. Texas Department of Public SafetyThis case was about whether a Texas state trooper who returned from military service with service-related lung injuries could sue his state employer under USERRA after the state refused to place him in a suitable job. The Court held that Congress can allow those suits against states because the states gave up that immunity when they joined the Union in matters tied to Congress’s war powers.Decided 20-603DecidedPrayer by public school coachesKennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.A high school football coach was disciplined by his school district for praying at midfield after games. The Supreme Court ruled that the school's actions violated the coach's First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.Decided 21-418DecidedIntent in prescription drug crimesXiulu Ruan v. United StatesThis case asked what prosecutors must prove to convict a doctor under the federal drug law for prescribing controlled substances outside the bounds of legitimate medical practice. The Supreme Court held that the government must show the doctor knowingly or intentionally acted without authorization, not just that the prescriptions were objectively improper.Decided 20-1410DecidedMedicare days in hospital paymentsBecerra v. Empire Health Foundation, For Valley Hospital Medical CenterThis case was about how the federal government calculates extra Medicare payments for hospitals that treat many low-income patients. The dispute centered on whether patients who qualify for Medicare Part A count in the Medicare part of that formula even if Medicare did not actually pay for their hospital stay, and the Court held that they do.Decided 20-1312DecidedAbortion rights and state powerDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health OrganizationIn this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, overturning the precedents set by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The decision returned the authority to regulate abortion to individual states and their elected representatives.Decided 19-1392DecidedLawsuits over Miranda warningsVega v. TekohThis case asked whether a person can sue a police officer for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the officer failed to give Miranda warnings and the resulting statement was later used against the person in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court held that a Miranda violation by itself does not provide a basis for a § 1983 claim.Decided 21-499DecidedConcealed carry permitsNew York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. BruenThe Supreme Court considered whether New York's law requiring individuals to show a special need for self-defense to obtain a concealed-carry license is constitutional. The Court ruled that this requirement violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to bear arms in public.Decided 20-843DecidedBerger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACPNorth Carolina’s NAACP challenged a state voter-ID law, and legislative leaders Phil Berger and Tim Moore sought to join the case although the attorney general was already defending the law. The Supreme Court overturned the Fourth Circuit and ruled that the legislative leaders could intervene (join the lawsuit as parties) to defend the law.Decided 21-248DecidedTuition aid for religious schoolsCarson v. MakinThis case is about Maine’s tuition-assistance program for families in school districts without their own public secondary schools and whether the state can exclude schools that provide religious instruction from that program. The dispute asks whether Maine may offer generally available school aid while denying families the option to use it at religious schools.Decided 20-1088DecidedPrisoner transport for evidenceShoop v. TwyfordRaymond Twyford, an Ohio death-row prisoner, asked a federal court to transport him to a hospital for neurological testing to develop evidence for his habeas petition (a prisoner’s challenge to being locked up). The Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s ruling (reversed) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), deciding that the All Writs Act did not authorize the order because Twyford had not shown that the evidence could be used for a specific claim.Decided 21-511DecidedForce in attempted robberyUnited States v. TaylorIn this case, the Supreme Court decided whether an attempted Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under federal law. The Court ruled that it does not, because the crime can be committed without the actual, attempted, or threatened use of physical force.Decided 20-1459DecidedMedicare rules for dialysis paymentsMarietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc.DaVita, a dialysis provider, argued that the Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan’s uniform outpatient-dialysis payments disadvantaged people with end-stage renal disease under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act does not allow liability based only on unequal effects and that the plan did not violate the Act; it overturned the Sixth Circuit’s ruling (reversed) and sent the case back to that lower court (remanded).Decided 20-1641DecidedUnited States v. WashingtonThe Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling (reversed it) and sent the case back to that court (remanded it). It decided that Washington’s workers’ compensation law treats the Federal Government and its contractors differently on its face, and that 40 U.S.C. §3172(a) does not clearly waive immunity from such state discrimination, making the law unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.Decided 21-404DecidedBond hearings for detained immigrantsGarland v. GonzalezThis case concerns noncitizens held in immigration detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) who sought class-wide court orders requiring bond hearings after prolonged detention. The Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) prevents lower courts from issuing that kind of class-wide injunctive relief.Decided 20-322DecidedMedicaid repayment for future careGallardo v. MarstillerThe case asked whether Florida’s Medicaid program could take money from a personal-injury settlement not just for past medical expenses Medicaid already paid, but also from the portion of the settlement representing future medical expenses. The Supreme Court held that the federal Medicaid Act allows a state to seek that reimbursement from settlement funds allocated to future medical care.Decided 20-1263DecidedStates defending immigration rulesArizona v. City and County of San FranciscoThe Supreme Court dismissed (threw the case out) the writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) as improvidently granted (accepted for review but not suitable for a decision). It did not decide whether Arizona and other states could intervene (join the case) to defend a federal immigration rule after the United States stopped defending it, or whether the rule was lawful.Decided 20-1775DecidedSafety measures for child returnsGolan v. SaadaThis case concerns when a court handling an international child-abduction dispute under the Hague Convention may refuse to send a child back to the child’s home country after finding that return would expose the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm. The dispute specifically asks whether courts must consider protective or other ameliorative measures that might make return possible despite that grave-risk finding.Decided 20-1034DecidedReopening judgments for court mistakesKemp v. United StatesThis case was about whether a federal court can reopen a final judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) when the district judge made a legal error. The Supreme Court held that the rule’s reference to a "mistake" does include a judge’s error of law, although Kemp’s request was still too late under the rule’s one-year deadline.Decided 21-5726DecidedEvidence for private arbitrationZF Automotive U. S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.This case asked whether parties in private arbitration proceedings overseas can use a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), to get discovery in U.S. courts for use in those arbitrations. The Supreme Court held that the statute applies only to governmental or intergovernmental tribunals, not private commercial arbitration panels.Decided 21-401DecidedTribal and federal prosecutionsDenezpi v. United StatesThis case asked whether the federal government violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by prosecuting Merle Denezpi in federal court after he had already been prosecuted in a Court of Indian Offenses for conduct arising from the same incident on tribal land. The Supreme Court held that the later federal prosecution was allowed because the two prosecutions were for different offenses.Decided 20-7622DecidedSuing federal officersEgbert v. BouleBorder Patrol agent Erik Egbert allegedly pushed inn owner Robert Boule during an immigration inquiry, and Boule later sued for excessive force and First Amendment retaliation. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and decided that a Bivens damages claim (a court-created lawsuit seeking money from a federal officer) was unavailable for either claim.Decided 21-147DecidedFederal courts and new evidenceShinn v. Martinez RamirezIn David Ramirez’s federal challenge to his imprisonment, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and decided that a federal court may not hold an evidentiary hearing or consider evidence outside the state-court record because of mistakes by his state post-conviction lawyer. The Court also decided that Martinez v. Ryan does not remove this limit under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).Decided 20-1009DecidedReview of green card denialsPatel v. GarlandThis case is about whether federal courts can review an immigration agency’s factual finding that a noncitizen is ineligible to seek lawful permanent residence through adjustment of status. Patel argued that he accidentally checked a box claiming U.S. citizenship on a Georgia driver’s license application, while the government treated that as a false citizenship claim that made him inadmissible.Decided 20-979DecidedCampaign loan repayment limitsFederal Election Comm'n v. Ted CruzThe Supreme Court sided with Ted Cruz’s campaign, ruling that it had the legal right to challenge a federal $250,000 limit on post-election contributions used to repay a candidate’s campaign loan. The Court also ruled that the limit improperly burdens core political speech under the First Amendment and agreed with the lower court’s decision.Decided 21-12DecidedReligious flags on city flagpolesShurtleff v. BostonThe Supreme Court decided that Boston’s flag-raising program was not government speech, so the city violated the First Amendment by refusing Camp Constitution’s request to fly a Christian flag because of its religious viewpoint. The Court overturned the First Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded).Decided 20-1800DecidedDamages for emotional harmCummings v. Premier Rehab KellerThis case asked whether a patient who was denied an American Sign Language interpreter by a federally funded physical therapy provider could recover money for emotional harm under the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court held that emotional distress damages are not available in private suits enforcing those statutes.Decided 20-219DecidedRailroad yard safetyLeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.Bradley LeDure, a Union Pacific Railroad employee, said he was injured after slipping on oil on a locomotive walkway during a freight train’s temporary stop in a railyard. The Supreme Court left the Seventh Circuit’s judgment in place (affirmed it) by an equally divided vote, with Justice Barrett not participating, so it did not settle whether the Locomotive Inspection Act covered the locomotive or whether a jury could hear LeDure’s claim that the railroad was careless.Decided 20-807DecidedFederal courts and arbitration awardsBadgerow v. WaltersThis case was about whether a federal court can hear a request to confirm or throw out an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act by looking to the federal nature of the underlying dispute. The Supreme Court held that for requests under Sections 9 and 10, federal courts need their own independent basis for jurisdiction and cannot use the Act’s “look-through” approach from Section 4.Decided 20-1143DecidedFree speech and board censureHouston Community College System v. WilsonThis case asked whether a public college board violated the First Amendment when it formally censured one of its elected trustees after he repeatedly criticized the board and sued over its actions. The Supreme Court held that a purely verbal censure by an elected body, without more, does not create an actionable First Amendment retaliation claim.Decided 20-804DecidedReligious practice during executionsRamirez v. CollierThe Court ruled 8–1 for John Ramirez, holding that he was likely to succeed under RLUIPA because Texas’s ban on his pastor praying aloud and laying hands on him in the execution chamber substantially burdened his religious exercise. Texas did not show that these restrictions were the least restrictive way to protect its compelling interests, so the Court reversed and sent the case back to the lower court.Decided 21-5592DecidedWhen crimes count separatelyWooden v. United StatesThis case asked whether William Wooden’s 10 burglary convictions, all arising from one night of breaking into multiple units in a single storage facility, counted as separate crimes for a federal sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Supreme Court held that crimes committed during one continuous criminal episode like Wooden’s were not committed on different "occasions" and therefore counted only once under ACCA.Decided 20-5279DecidedDeath penalty jury selectionUnited States v. TsarnaevThe Supreme Court overturned the First Circuit’s ruling (reversed it), which had wiped out Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s capital sentences. The case concerned jury questioning about pretrial media coverage and whether the trial judge could exclude evidence that Tsarnaev’s older brother was allegedly involved in earlier crimes.Decided 20-443DecidedCopyright registration mistakesUnicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L. P.Design company Unicolors sued clothing retailer H&M Hennes & Mauritz over a fabric design and a disputed copyright registration. The Supreme Court ruled that an inaccurate registration may still receive the Copyright Act’s protection when the owner lacked knowledge of either the relevant facts or the law, wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, and sent the case back to the lower court (vacated and remanded).Decided 20-915DecidedHigh retirement plan feesHughes v. Northwestern Uni v.Northwestern plan participants alleged excessive recordkeeping fees and costlier investments despite cheaper options. The Supreme Court wiped out the Seventh Circuit’s ruling (vacated it) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), saying participants’ choices do not excuse alleged mismanagement; courts must assess managers’ duty to monitor and remove imprudent investments in context.Decided 19-1401DecidedRight to question witnessesHemphill v. New YorkThe Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant does not forfeit their Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses simply by making arguments that 'open the door' to otherwise inadmissible evidence. The Court held that admitting an unavailable witness's plea transcript over the defendant's objection violated the Confrontation Clause.Decided 20-637DecidedMilitary pensions and Social SecurityBabcock v. KijakaziThe case asked whether a retired National Guard dual-status technician’s civil-service pension should be treated as a pension based entirely on military service, which would prevent the Social Security Administration from reducing his benefits under the windfall elimination provision. The Supreme Court held that this kind of pension is based on civilian employment, not wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service.Decided 20-480DecidedFederal challenge to abortion bansUnited States v. TexasThe United States sued Texas to block the enforcement of SB 8, a state law that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and allows private citizens to sue anyone who assists in the procedure. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case without deciding the merits.Decided 21-588DecidedCitizen lawsuits over abortion bansWhole Woman's Health v. JacksonThis case concerns Texas Senate Bill 8, which banned most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected and tried to avoid normal federal court review by letting private citizens, rather than state officials, enforce the law through civil lawsuits. The Supreme Court considered whether abortion providers could bring a pre-enforcement federal lawsuit to block that law before private suits were filed against them.Decided 21-463DecidedPolice actions before deadly forceCity of Tahlequah v. BondThis case arose after Tahlequah police officers responding to a call about an intoxicated man at a home shot Dominic Rollice in a garage when he picked up a hammer and moved toward them. The dispute is over whether the officers can be held liable under the Fourth Amendment, or are protected by qualified immunity, based on the claim that their own actions recklessly created the situation that led to the shooting.Decided 20-1668DecidedPolice use of forceRivas-Villegas v. CorteslunaThis case asked whether a police officer could be sued for excessive force after he briefly put his knee on the back of a suspect who had a knife in his pocket while officers were disarming and handcuffing him during a domestic violence response. The Supreme Court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because prior cases had not clearly established that this conduct was unconstitutional.Decided 20-1539