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

By term

October Term 2022 (2022–2023)

50 casesRecap
  • Before Arguments0
  • Awaiting Decision0
  • Decided50
  • Dismissed0
50 of 50 tracked cases in October Term 2022 (2022–2023) have a decision on the record.

Term tracker

Every published case, by stage

Decided Cases

50
DecidedStudent loan forgivenessDepartment of Education v. BrownTwo student-loan borrowers challenged the Biden administration's student loan debt relief plan, arguing it was an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the borrowers lacked Article III standing to sue because they could not show their injury was directly traceable to the debt-forgiveness plan.Decided 22-535DecidedStudent loan forgivenessBiden v. NebraskaThe Court held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create websites celebrating same-sex marriages when doing so would contradict her religious beliefs. The ruling emphasized protection for expressive speech.Decided 22-506DecidedTrademark claims overseasAbitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int'l, Inc.This case involves a dispute over whether a U.S. company can sue a foreign distributor for trademark infringement that occurred primarily outside the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act's trademark protections apply only to infringing conduct that takes place domestically.Decided 21-1043DecidedReligious accommodations at workGroff v. DeJoyA former postal worker sued the U.S. Postal Service under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act after being disciplined for refusing to work on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. The Supreme Court clarified the standard for when an employer can deny a religious accommodation, ruling that employers must show that granting the request would result in substantial increased costs rather than just a trivial burden.Decided 22-174DecidedLawsuits against out-of-state companiesMallory v. Norfolk Southern R. CoRobert Mallory sued Norfolk Southern Railway in Pennsylvania for workplace injuries that occurred in other states. The Supreme Court ruled that a Pennsylvania law requiring out-of-state companies to consent to face lawsuits in the state as a condition of doing business there does not violate the Due Process Clause.Decided 21-1168DecidedWho sets federal election rulesMoore v. HarperNorth Carolina legislators argued the Elections Clause gives state legislatures exclusive authority over rules for congressional elections. The Court rejected that theory and held state courts may review such laws under state constitutions, subject to ordinary federal judicial review.Decided 21-1271DecidedThreats and free speechCounterman v. ColoradoThis case examines whether a person's threatening Facebook messages constitute a 'true threat' unprotected by the First Amendment. The Court held that the government must prove the speaker had some subjective understanding of the statements' threatening nature, using at least a recklessness standard.Decided 22-138DecidedSpeech encouraging illegal immigrationUnited States v. HansenHansen involved a First Amendment challenge to a federal immigration-solicitation statute used in a fraudulent scheme promising a path to citizenship. The Court rejected the facial overbreadth ruling, construed the statute narrowly, and reversed the Ninth Circuit.Decided 22-179DecidedArbitration appeals pause lawsuitsCoinbase, Inc. v. BielskiAbraham Bielski sued Coinbase after a scammer stole money from his account, and Coinbase attempted to move the case to arbitration. The Supreme Court ruled that when a party appeals a lower court's refusal to compel arbitration, the lower court must pause all proceedings until the appeal is resolved.Decided 22-105DecidedRight to question witnessesSamia v. United StatesThe Supreme Court held that admitting a non-testifying codefendant's redacted confession, which substitutes the defendant's name with 'other person,' does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. This applies when the jury is instructed to consider the confession only against the codefendant, even if context implicates the defendant.Decided 22-196DecidedObstruction and deportationPugin v. GarlandThe Supreme Court held that a state conviction for accessory after the fact to a felony qualifies as an offense relating to obstruction of justice under the Immigration and Nationality Act, making a noncitizen eligible for deportation. This classification applies even if no formal investigation or proceeding was pending at the time of the offense.Decided 22-23DecidedFederal duty to secure waterArizona v. Navajo NationThe case asked whether the 1868 treaty and related federal law imposed an affirmative federal duty to secure water for the Navajo Nation. The Court held they did not impose that affirmative duty and reversed the Ninth Circuit.Decided 21-1484DecidedRepeat challenges to convictionsJones v. HendrixThis case considers whether a federal prisoner can file a habeas corpus petition to challenge their conviction based on a new interpretation of a criminal statute after already exhausting their initial post-conviction appeals. The Supreme Court ruled that the saving clause in federal law does not allow prisoners to bypass restrictions on successive motions to raise such claims.Decided 21-857DecidedForeigners’ U.S. fraud claimsYegiazaryan v. SmaginVitaly Smagin, a Russian citizen, sued another Russian citizen residing in California under the RICO Act for attempting to evade a U.S. court judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that a foreign plaintiff can file a private civil RICO suit if the circumstances show the injury arose in the United States.Decided 22-381DecidedConcurrent or consecutive sentencesLora v. United StatesEfrain Lora was convicted under a federal statute for his role in a drug-trafficking-related murder. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal judges have the discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences for this specific offense, as the consecutive-sentence mandate in a related subsection does not apply.Decided 22-49DecidedRetrials after wrong-place trialsSmith v. United StatesThe Supreme Court unanimously held that when a defendant's conviction is overturned because the trial was held in the wrong legal venue, the Constitution permits the government to retry the defendant in the proper venue. The Court rejected the argument that the Double Jeopardy Clause or Venue Clause requires the charges to be dismissed entirely.Decided 21-1576DecidedNative child placement rulesHaaland v. BrackeenThis case considers the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which establishes placement preferences for Native American children in foster care and adoption proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling that it falls within Congress's Article I powers and does not violate the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering principles.Decided 21-376DecidedTribes' immunity in bankruptcyLac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. CoughlinBrian Coughlin filed for bankruptcy after taking a payday loan from a business owned by a Native American tribe, raising the issue of whether the tribe was protected from bankruptcy proceedings by sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally abrogates the sovereign immunity of federally recognized Indian tribes.Decided 22-227DecidedTrademarks in parody productsJack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLCVIP Products created a dog toy parodying the iconic Jack Daniel's whiskey bottle. The Supreme Court ruled that using another's trademark humorously on a commercial product is subject to standard trademark infringement and dilution analysis rather than receiving automatic First Amendment protection.Decided 22-148DecidedLawsuits over nursing home rightsHealth and Hospital Corporation of Marion Cty. v. TalevskiGorgi Talevski's family sued a state-run nursing facility for allegedly using unnecessary chemical restraints and improperly discharging him in violation of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act. The Supreme Court ruled that individuals can sue state-run facilities under Section 1983 for violating rights established by this Act.Decided 21-806DecidedVoting rights in district mapsAllen v. MilliganVoters challenged Alabama's 2021 congressional redistricting map, arguing that it illegally packed Black voters into a single district and diluted their voting power. The Supreme Court ruled that the map likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.Decided 21-1086DecidedWhen identity theft appliesDubin v. United StatesDavid Dubin was convicted of aggravated identity theft for overbilling Medicaid using patients' reimbursement numbers. The Supreme Court ruled that a person only commits aggravated identity theft if the use of another person's identity is at the core of the criminal conduct, rather than just a peripheral feature.Decided 22-10DecidedInvestor lawsuits over registered sharesSlack Technologies, LLC v. PiraniIn a case involving Slack's direct public listing, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals suing under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 must prove they purchased shares directly traceable to the allegedly misleading registration statement.Decided 22-200DecidedKnowledge of false billingUnited States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc.The Supreme Court considered whether a pharmacy chain knowingly violated the False Claims Act by overbilling the government while running a price-matching program. The Court ruled that liability depends on the defendant's subjective belief about the lawfulness of their conduct at the time, rather than an objective standard of reasonableness.Decided 21-1326DecidedKeeping tax sale surplusTyler v. Hennepin CountyGeraldine Tyler owed $15,000 in property taxes, leading Hennepin County to foreclose on her home, sell it for $40,000, and keep the $25,000 surplus. The Supreme Court ruled that the government keeping the excess value of the home beyond the tax debt violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.Decided 22-166DecidedAppealing legal rulingsDupree v. YoungerThe Supreme Court held that a party does not need to file a post-trial motion to preserve a purely legal issue for appeal if that issue was already rejected at the summary judgment stage. This clarifies the procedural rules for appealing legal questions versus factual disputes.Decided 22-210DecidedWhich wetlands federal law protectsSackett v. EPAMichael and Chantall Sackett were blocked from building a home on their property by the EPA, which claimed the land contained protected wetlands. The Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Water Act only covers wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters.Decided 21-454DecidedReviewing agency decisionsCalcutt v. FDICThe Supreme Court ruled that when a federal agency makes a legal error, an appeals court must send the case back to the agency rather than reviewing the factual record itself. This decision reversed a lower court's attempt to uphold FDIC sanctions against a former bank CEO using its own legal rationale.Decided 22-714DecidedStates joining a border lawsuitArizona v. MayorkasSeveral states sought to join a case challenging a lower-court order directing the Biden administration to end Title 42, a policy used to turn away migrants at the border for public-health reasons. The Supreme Court wiped out the appeals court’s denial and sent the case back (remanded), instructing it to throw out the states’ request as no longer a live dispute; it did not decide whether they could join.Decided 22-592DecidedIRS notice for third-party recordsPolselli v. IRSThe Supreme Court held that the IRS is not required to give notice when issuing a summons for a third party's records if the summons is intended to help collect a delinquent taxpayer's assessed liability. This exception applies even if the delinquent taxpayer has no legal interest in the summoned records.Decided 21-1599DecidedSocial media and terror attacksTwitter, Inc. v. TaamnehIn a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that social media platforms cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting international terrorism under 18 U.S.C. Section 2333 merely for failing to take more aggressive action to remove terrorist content. The Court found that providing generalized platform access does not constitute knowingly providing substantial assistance to a specific terrorist attack.Decided 21-1496DecidedPlatform liability for recommendationsGonzalez v. Google LLCThe family of a terrorist attack victim sued Google, alleging that YouTube's algorithms aided ISIS by recommending their recruitment videos. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a related ruling, declining to address the scope of immunity provided to internet platforms by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.Decided 21-1333DecidedHow detailed patents must beAmgen Inc. v. SanofiIn a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two of Amgen's patents for cholesterol-lowering drugs were invalid because they were too broad. The Court found the patents failed to satisfy the Patent Act's enablement clause by claiming an entire class of antibodies without providing enough detail for a skilled person to make and use them.Decided 21-757DecidedFair use of artAndy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. GoldsmithThe Supreme Court considered whether the Andy Warhol Foundation's commercial licensing of artwork derived from Lynn Goldsmith's copyrighted photograph of the musician Prince constituted fair use. The Court ruled that the commercial nature and similar purpose of the use weighed against a finding of fair use under the Copyright Act.Decided 21-869DecidedWire fraud and lost informationLouis Ciminelli, Petitioner v. United States, et al.The Court unanimously ruled for Louis Ciminelli, holding that federal wire-fraud law does not allow convictions based on the Second Circuit’s “right-to-control” theory. Losing complete and accurate economic information is not traditional property, so it cannot by itself support a federal fraud conviction.Decided 21-1170DecidedPrivate citizens and public corruptionJoseph Percoco, Petitioner v. United States, et al.The Court unanimously ruled for Percoco, holding that the jury instructions used to decide whether a private citizen owed the public honest services were too vague. It reversed the Second Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings.Decided 21-1158DecidedImmigration appeal requirementsSantos-Zacaria v. GarlandThis case considers whether a federal immigration law prevents a court of appeals from reviewing an immigrant's claim if they did not first file a discretionary motion to reconsider with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Supreme Court ruled that the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and does not mandate seeking discretionary review before appealing to federal court.Decided 21-1436DecidedState rules on pork salesNational Pork Producers Council v. RossThe Court upheld California’s Proposition 12, which bars the sale in California of pork from breeding pigs kept in confinement that does not meet the state’s space standards. The Court ruled that the law did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause because it did not intentionally discriminate against out-of-state economic interests, and the pork producers had not stated a valid claim that its interstate-commerce burdens were clearly excessive compared with its local benefits.Decided 21-468DecidedDNA lawsuit filing deadlineReed v. GoertzRodney Reed, a death row inmate, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence after state courts denied his request. The Supreme Court decided that the statute of limitations for such a lawsuit begins to run when the state-court litigation, including any appeals, officially ends.Decided 21-442DecidedTurkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United StatesTurkiye Halk Bankasi, a Turkish state-owned bank, was indicted for participating in a money-laundering scheme to evade U.S. sanctions against Iran. The Supreme Court ruled that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not protect foreign states and their instrumentalities from criminal prosecution in U.S. courts, though common-law immunity issues remain to be decided.Decided 21-1450DecidedCourt access to challenge agenciesAxon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTCAxon Enterprise sued the Federal Trade Commission, arguing that the agency's structure and procedures are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided that federal district courts have the authority to hear these constitutional challenges before the agency's administrative proceedings are completed.Decided 21-86DecidedCourt challenges to SEC hearingsSEC v. CochranThe Supreme Court considered whether a federal district court has the authority to hear constitutional challenges to the Securities and Exchange Commission's administrative proceedings before those proceedings conclude. The Court ruled that district courts do have jurisdiction to hear these structural constitutional claims.Decided 21-1239DecidedDisability lawsuits against schoolsLuna Perez v. Sturgis Public SchoolsA deaf student sued his school district under the Americans with Disabilities Act for compensatory damages after being denied an appropriate education. The Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to exhaust the administrative processes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act first, because the specific remedy he sought was not available under that law.Decided 21-887DecidedParental notice for abortion requestsChapman v. DoeJane Doe challenged court clerk Michelle Chapman’s requirement that her parents be notified when she sought a judicial bypass for an abortion, raising questions about Chapman’s immunity and Doe’s rights. The Supreme Court did not decide those questions: it wiped out the Eighth Circuit’s judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back (remanded) with instructions to throw it out (dismiss it) as no longer a live dispute.Decided 22-312DecidedForeign account reporting finesBittner v. United StatesAlexandru Bittner challenged a $2.72 million fine for failing to report his foreign bank accounts, arguing the penalty should be assessed per unfiled report rather than per unreported account. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the Bank Secrecy Act's $10,000 maximum penalty for nonwillful violations applies on a per-report basis.Decided 21-1195DecidedDischarging a partner's fraud debtBartenwerfer v. BuckleyKate Bartenwerfer and her husband sold a house with defects, leading to a fraud judgment against them before they filed for bankruptcy. The Supreme Court ruled that a debtor cannot discharge a debt obtained by a partner's fraud in bankruptcy, even if the debtor was completely unaware of the fraudulent acts.Decided 21-908DecidedOvertime pay for daily workersHelix Energy Solutions v. HewittMichael Hewitt, an offshore oil rig supervisor paid a daily rate totaling over $200,000 annually, sued his employer for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Supreme Court ruled that daily-rate workers are not exempt from overtime pay as bona fide executives unless they meet specific salary basis conditions, meaning Hewitt was entitled to overtime.Decided 21-984DecidedFederal review of state rulingsCruz v. ArizonaJohn Montenegro Cruz, who was sentenced to death, sought post-conviction relief arguing a significant change in the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona Supreme Court's procedural denial of his claim was not an adequate and independent state-law ground, allowing federal courts to review his case.Decided 21-846DecidedProtecting lawyer-client talksIn re Grand JuryA grand jury subpoenaed documents from a company and its law firm, who withheld certain communications that contained both legal and non-legal advice. The Supreme Court initially took the case to decide when such dual-purpose communications are protected by attorney-client privilege, but ultimately dismissed the case without a ruling.Decided 21-1397DecidedExtending veterans' benefits deadlinesArellano v. McDonoughAdolfo Arellano applied for veterans' disability benefits 30 years after his discharge and argued that the one-year deadline for retroactive benefits should be extended due to his disability. The Supreme Court ruled that the one-year filing deadline for veterans to submit disability claims cannot be extended under principles of equitable tolling.Decided 21-432