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

By term

October Term 2023 (2023–2024)

61 casesRecap
  • Before Arguments0
  • Awaiting Decision0
  • Decided61
  • Dismissed0
61 of 61 tracked cases in October Term 2023 (2023–2024) have a decision on the record.

Term tracker

Every published case, by stage

Decided Cases

61
DecidedSocial media content moderationNetChoice, LLC v. PaxtonThe Supreme Court reviewed a Texas law that restricted social media platforms from moderating user content and required detailed disclosures about their editorial practices. The Court vacated the lower court's decision, ruling that the Fifth Circuit failed to properly analyze whether the law facially violated the First Amendment rights of the platforms to curate speech.Decided 22-555DecidedGovernment rules for social mediaMoody v. NetChoiceFlorida defended a law restricting large social-media platforms' moderation practices and requiring explanations for moderation decisions. The Court vacated and remanded because the lower courts had not properly analyzed the facial First Amendment issues across the laws' full range of applications.Decided 22-277DecidedAgency rule challenge deadlinesCorner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve SystemThe Court addressed Florida and Texas laws regulating social media platforms but remanded both cases for further analysis. The Court provided guidance on how the First Amendment applies to content moderation by social media companies.Decided 22-1008DecidedPresidential immunityTrump v. United StatesThe Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in office. The Court held that presidents have absolute immunity for actions within their core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts.Decided 23-939DecidedPublic camping and homelessnessCity of Grants Pass v. JohnsonThe Supreme Court ruled that a city's enforcement of public camping bans against homeless individuals does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, even when shelter space is unavailable. The decision overturned lower court rulings that had restricted municipalities from penalizing involuntary homelessness.Decided 23-175DecidedObstruction of CongressFischer v. United StatesThis case involves a defendant charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol breach who challenged the government's use of an obstruction statute originally enacted in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the statute, which prohibits obstructing official proceedings, applies only to evidence-impairing acts like destroying documents, rather than all forms of obstructive conduct.Decided 23-5572DecidedPower of federal agenciesRelentless, Inc. v. Dept. of CommerceThis case challenged a federal regulation requiring herring fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors, but ultimately served as the vehicle for the Supreme Court to overrule the Chevron deference doctrine. The Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires judges to exercise independent judgment when interpreting statutes rather than deferring to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws.Decided 22-1219DecidedPower of federal agenciesLoper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoCommercial fishing companies challenged a federal rule requiring them to help fund onboard monitoring, using the case to attack Chevron deference. The Court overruled Chevron, held courts must exercise independent judgment on legal questions under the APA, and vacated the D.C. Circuit's judgment.Decided 22-451DecidedEmergency abortion careMoyle v. United StatesAfter briefing and argument, the Court dismissed the writs as improvidently granted and vacated its earlier stay. The Court therefore did not finally resolve the EMTALA-preemption merits in this case.Decided 23-726DecidedJury trials for SEC fraudSEC v. JarkesyThe Court held that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. The SEC cannot adjudicate such claims through in-house administrative proceedings.Decided 22-859DecidedEPA ozone pollution ruleOhio, et al., Applicants v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Environmental Protection Agency's "Good Neighbor Plan," which aimed to reduce ozone pollution crossing state lines, finding that the agency likely failed to adequately explain why the plan's emissions controls remained reasonable after several states were removed from coverage. The Court ruled that the challengers were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the EPA's action was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.Decided 23A349DecidedBankruptcy releases without consentHarrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.The Supreme Court considered whether a bankruptcy court can approve a Chapter 11 reorganization plan that releases legal claims against non-debtor third parties, specifically the Sackler family owners of Purdue Pharma, without the consent of the claimants. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize such nonconsensual third-party releases.Decided 23-124DecidedPayments to local officialsSnyder v. United StatesThe Supreme Court ruled that a federal anti-corruption law prohibits bribes to state and local officials but does not criminalize gratuities, which are payments made in recognition of past actions without a prior quid pro quo agreement. The decision overturned the conviction of an Indiana mayor who had accepted money after the city purchased garbage trucks.Decided 23-108DecidedGovernment pressure on social mediaVivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al., Petitioners v. Missouri, et al.The Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit alleging the federal government coerced social media platforms into censoring speech, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The Court held the plaintiffs failed to prove their content restrictions were caused by government pressure rather than the platforms' independent policies.Decided 23-411DecidedJuries and past-crime sentence increasesErlinger v. United StatesThe Supreme Court held that under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, a unanimous jury, rather than a judge, must determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether a defendant's prior offenses were committed on separate occasions for the purpose of sentence enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act.Decided 23-370DecidedQuestioning absent forensic analystsSmith v. ArizonaThe Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights were violated when a substitute expert witness testified about the findings of a non-testifying forensic analyst. The Court held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements to support their own opinion, those statements are effectively being introduced for their truth, requiring the defendant to have the opportunity to cross-examine the original analyst.Decided 22-899DecidedSpouse visa denialsDepartment of State, et al., Petitioners v. Sandra Muñoz, et al.The Supreme Court held that a U.S. citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in having their noncitizen spouse admitted to the country, meaning the denial of a visa does not trigger procedural due process rights for the citizen spouse. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, reinforcing the doctrine of consular nonreviewability regarding visa determinations.Decided 23-334DecidedGuns and domestic violence ordersUnited States v. RahimiThe Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and upheld the federal ban on gun possession by people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. It held that temporary disarmament in those circumstances fits within the Nation's historical firearm-regulation tradition.Decided 22-915DecidedEvidence of arrests over speechGonzalez v. TrevinoThis case clarified the evidence required to prove a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim when probable cause for the arrest exists. The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs are not strictly required to provide specific examples of others not being arrested for similar conduct, but may instead use other objective evidence to show the arrest was retaliatory.Decided 22-1025DecidedExpert testimony about drug knowledgeDiaz v. United StatesThe Supreme Court held that expert testimony stating "most people" in a certain group possess a particular mental state does not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), provided the expert does not explicitly offer an opinion about the specific defendant's mental state. The case arose from a drug trafficking prosecution where the defendant claimed she was unaware of the drugs in her vehicle, and the government introduced expert testimony that drug couriers generally know they are carrying contraband.Decided 23-14DecidedBaseless criminal chargesChiaverini v. City of Napoleon, OhioThe Supreme Court ruled that a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim can proceed regarding a baseless criminal charge, even if other valid charges supported by probable cause were brought at the same time. The Court rejected a lower court's rule that the presence of probable cause for any single charge automatically defeats a malicious prosecution claim for other baseless charges.Decided 23-50DecidedTaxing undistributed earningsMoore v. United StatesThis case challenged the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax, a one-time tax on the accumulated, undistributed earnings of foreign corporations controlled by American shareholders. The Court upheld the tax, ruling that Congress has the constitutional authority to attribute an entity's realized and undistributed income to its shareholders and tax them on that income.Decided 22-800DecidedImmigration hearing noticesCampos-Chaves v. GarlandThe Supreme Court ruled that the government provides adequate notice for removal proceedings when it sends an initial document lacking the time and place of the hearing, followed by a second document containing that information. This decision prevents noncitizens from rescinding in absentia removal orders based on the initial defective notice if they received the subsequent hearing details.Decided 22-674DecidedBump stocks as machine gunsMerrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. Michael CargillThe Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns under federal law. The Court determined that a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because it does not fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.Decided 22-976DecidedBankruptcy fee refundsUnited States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLCFollowing a previous ruling that a bankruptcy fee statute was unconstitutional because it created non-uniform fees across different districts, the Court had to decide the appropriate remedy for debtors who overpaid. The Court held that the U.S. Trustee is not required to issue refunds for the past overpayments, ruling instead that prospective parity (equal fees going forward) is the sufficient remedy.Decided 22-1238DecidedLabor board injunctionsStarbucks Corp. v. McKinneyThe Court ruled for Starbucks, holding that federal courts considering the National Labor Relations Board’s requests for temporary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act must use the usual four-factor test for preliminary injunctions. The Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s decision and sent the case back for reconsideration under that standard.Decided 23-367DecidedSuing over abortion pill rulesFDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic MedicineThe Court unanimously held that the doctor and association plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the FDA's mifepristone actions. Because standing was absent, the Court did not reach the merits of the FDA's regulatory decisions.Decided 23-235DecidedPolitical speech in trademarksVidal v. ElsterThe Supreme Court considered whether a federal trademark law prohibiting the registration of a living person's name without their consent violates the First Amendment when the trademark involves political criticism. The Court unanimously ruled that the "names clause" of the Lanham Act is constitutional and does not infringe on free speech rights.Decided 22-704DecidedLife insurance and estate taxesConnelly v. United StatesIn a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that life insurance proceeds used by a closely held corporation to redeem a deceased shareholder's stock must be included in the corporation's fair market value for federal estate tax purposes. The Court determined that the corporation's contractual obligation to redeem the shares is not a liability that offsets the value of those insurance proceeds.Decided 23-146DecidedInsurer objections to bankruptcy plansTruck Insurance Exchange, Petitioner v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et al.The Supreme Court ruled that an insurer bearing financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims qualifies as a "party in interest" under the Bankruptcy Code, granting them the right to object to a Chapter 11 reorganization plan. The decision rejected the lower court's "insurance neutrality" doctrine, which had previously limited insurers' ability to participate unless their specific contract rights were directly altered.Decided 22-1079DecidedTribal health care overheadBecerra v. San Carlos Apache TribeThe Supreme Court ruled that the Indian Health Service must reimburse tribes for overhead costs associated with spending healthcare revenue collected from third-party payers like Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. The decision affirmed that the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act requires the government to cover these contract support costs to support tribal self-governance in healthcare administration.Decided 23-250DecidedState rules for national banksCantero v. Bank of America, N. A.This case addressed whether the National Bank Act preempts a New York state law requiring banks to pay interest on funds held in mortgage escrow accounts. The Supreme Court unanimously held that courts must determine if the state law prevents or significantly interferes with a national bank's powers, rather than applying a categorical preemption rule.Decided 22-529DecidedLawyer errors in death sentencesThornell v. JonesThe Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision to grant habeas relief to a death row inmate, ruling that the Ninth Circuit failed to properly apply the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel by not adequately weighing the new mitigating evidence against the severe aggravating factors of the crime. The Court held that the additional evidence presented by the defendant would not have created a reasonable probability of a different sentencing outcome.Decided 22-982DecidedGovernment pressure on speechNRA v. VulloThe Court unanimously held that the NRA plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation by claiming New York's financial regulator coerced banks and insurers to cut ties with the NRA because of its advocacy. The case was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.Decided 22-842DecidedWhich contract controls arbitrationCoinbase v. SuskiThe Supreme Court unanimously ruled that when parties execute two conflicting contracts—one mandating arbitration and a later one sending disputes to court—a judge, rather than an arbitrator, must decide which agreement governs. This decision clarifies that courts retain the authority to resolve conflicts between superseding contracts regarding the forum for dispute resolution.Decided 23-3DecidedRace and voting mapsAlexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACPThe Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina's congressional redistricting plan was not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, finding that the lower court clearly erred in determining that race, rather than politics, was the predominant factor in drawing the district lines. The Court emphasized that plaintiffs must disentangle race from politics when the two are correlated and generally must provide an alternative map to prove racial predominance.Decided 22-807DecidedDrug lists for past convictionsJustin Rashaad Brown, Petitioner v. United StatesThe Supreme Court ruled that a state drug conviction qualifies as a "serious drug offense" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) if the drug was federally controlled at the time of the state conviction, even if it was later removed from federal schedules. The Court determined that ACCA requires a backward-looking approach to assess a defendant's prior criminal history based on the law in effect when the previous crimes were committed.Decided 22-6389DecidedPausing lawsuits for arbitrationSmith v. SpizzirriThe Supreme Court unanimously ruled that when a district court determines a lawsuit involves a dispute subject to arbitration and a party requests a stay, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires the court to pause the proceedings rather than dismiss the case entirely. This decision clarifies that judges do not have the discretion to dismiss lawsuits when sending claims to arbitration.Decided 22-1218DecidedConsumer bureau fundingConsumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.The Supreme Court considered whether the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which draws its budget from the Federal Reserve rather than annual congressional appropriations, is constitutional. The Court ultimately upheld the funding mechanism, ruling that it satisfies the requirements of the Appropriations Clause.Decided 22-448DecidedExtending federal appeal deadlinesHarrow v. Department of DefenseThe Court unanimously held that the 60-day deadline for a federal employee to ask the Federal Circuit to review a Merit Systems Protection Board decision is not a limit on the court’s power to hear the case. Because Congress did not clearly make the deadline jurisdictional, it may be subject to equitable tolling; the Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s decision and sent the case back for further proceedings.Decided 23-21DecidedHearings for seized propertyCulley v. MarshallThe Supreme Court held that in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, such as a vehicle, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not mandate a separate preliminary hearing to determine if the police can keep the property while the case is pending.Decided 22-585DecidedCopyright damages limitsWarner Chappell Music, Inc. v. NealyThe Supreme Court held that the Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, regardless of when the infringement occurred. This decision clarifies that there is no separate three-year time limit on recovering damages if a claim is otherwise timely under the "discovery rule."Decided 22-1078DecidedCriminal forfeiture deadlinesMcIntosh v. United StatesThe Supreme Court unanimously held that a district court does not lose its power to order criminal forfeiture at sentencing merely because it failed to enter the required preliminary forfeiture order before sentencing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2. The Court ruled for the United States, treating the deadline as a timing instruction rather than an absolute bar, while allowing appellate courts to review the error for harmlessness.Decided 22-7386DecidedDiscrimination in job transfersMuldrow v. City of St. LouisThe Supreme Court ruled that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act must show the transfer caused some harm to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but does not need to prove that the harm was "significant." The decision clarified that discriminatory transfers are actionable even if they do not result in a significant disadvantage like a pay cut or demotion.Decided 22-193DecidedUsing both GI Bill benefitsRudisill v. McDonoughThe Supreme Court considered whether a veteran who served two separate periods of qualifying service is entitled to receive education benefits under both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill up to a 48-month aggregate cap, without being forced to exhaust the less generous Montgomery benefits first. The Court ruled in favor of the veteran, holding that service members with separate entitlements can use either benefit in any order up to the statutory cap.Decided 22-888DecidedCompensation for flooded propertyDeVillier v. TexasThis case involves Texas property owners who sued the state for compensation after a highway barrier caused flooding on their land, arguing the damage constituted an uncompensated taking. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court's decision, ruling that the property owners could pursue their claims through an existing cause of action under Texas state law.Decided 22-913DecidedLimits on permit feesSheetz v. El Dorado CountyThe Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies equally to land-use permit conditions imposed by legislatures as it does to those imposed by administrative agencies. The decision clarifies that legislative exactions, such as monetary fees for building permits, are subject to the same constitutional scrutiny regarding nexus and proportionality as administrative decisions.Decided 22-1074DecidedWhen silence counts as fraudMacquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L. P.The Supreme Court ruled that a company's failure to disclose information required by SEC regulations does not automatically create liability for securities fraud under Rule 10b-5(b) unless that omission makes an actual affirmative statement misleading. The unanimous decision clarified that "pure omissions"—simply failing to speak when required—are not actionable under this specific anti-fraud rule, which targets half-truths rather than silence.Decided 22-1165DecidedBissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLCThe Supreme Court ruled that workers actively engaged in interstate transportation do not need to be employed by a company in the transportation industry to qualify for an exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act. The decision clarified that the exemption focuses on the specific work performed by the employees, such as delivering baked goods, rather than the general business of their employer.Decided 23-51DecidedNo-fly list lawsuitsFBI v. FikreThe Supreme Court considered whether a lawsuit challenging an individual's placement on the No Fly List became moot after the government removed him from the list and promised not to put him back on based on currently available information. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the case could proceed because the government failed to prove it would not relist him for the same conduct in the future.Decided 22-1178DecidedCourt review of immigration hardshipSitu Kamu Wilkinson, Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney GeneralThe Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have the jurisdiction to review an immigration agency's determination that a noncitizen's removal would not cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their family, classifying this as a mixed question of law and fact rather than a purely discretionary judgment.Decided 22-666DecidedAvoiding mandatory minimumsPulsifer v. United StatesThe Court held that a defendant seeking relief from a federal mandatory minimum under the safety-valve law must meet all three criminal-history requirements in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1). Because Mark Pulsifer had prior three-point offenses, he was ineligible for that relief, and the Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit in favor of the United States.Decided 22-340DecidedOfficials blocking social media usersO'Connor-Ratcliff v. GarnierThis case concerns whether public officials violate the First Amendment when they block individuals from their personal social media accounts that are used to communicate with the public about official business. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court's decision and remanded the case to be reconsidered under the new test established in the related case Lindke v. Freed.Decided 22-324DecidedOfficials blocking critics onlineLindke v. FreedThe Supreme Court established a new test to determine when a public official's social media activity constitutes state action, ruling that officials are liable for blocking critics only if they possess actual authority to speak for the state and purport to exercise that authority in their posts. The unanimous decision vacated a lower court ruling involving a city manager who blocked a resident from his Facebook page.Decided 22-611DecidedStates barring presidential candidatesTrump v. AndersonThe Court unanimously reversed Colorado's decision excluding Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It held that states may not enforce Section 3 against federal candidates and officeholders; that responsibility belongs to Congress.Decided 23-719DecidedRight to sue over speechSpeech First, Inc. v. SandsSpeech First argued Virginia Tech’s bias policy discouraged speech; the Fourth Circuit said the group lacked the right to sue. The Supreme Court agreed to hear it, wiped out the ruling (vacated it), sent the case back (remanded), and told the Fourth Circuit to throw out the claims as moot (no longer a live dispute).Decided 23-156DecidedRetrial after acquittalMcElrath v. GeorgiaThe Supreme Court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a state from retrying a defendant for a crime after a jury has returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, even if that verdict was inconsistent with a guilty verdict on a different count in the same trial.Decided 22-721DecidedChoosing the law for contractsGreat Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, overturning a lower court decision that allowed state public policy to invalidate them. The case arose from a dispute over a yacht insurance policy that designated New York law as the governing authority.Decided 22-500DecidedProof of whistleblower retaliationMurray v. UBS Securities, LLCThe Supreme Court ruled that a whistleblower suing under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not need to prove that their employer acted with "retaliatory intent" or animus to succeed on a claim. Instead, the employee must only demonstrate that their protected whistleblowing activity was a "contributing factor" in the adverse employment action taken against them.Decided 22-660DecidedGovernment liability for credit reportsDepartment of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. KirtzThe Supreme Court ruled that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) contains a clear waiver of sovereign immunity, allowing consumers to sue federal government agencies for money damages when they violate the Act's credit reporting requirements. The unanimous decision affirmed that the statutory definition of "person" includes government agencies, thereby subjecting them to liability.Decided 22-846DecidedHotel website accessibilityAcheson Hotels, LLC v. LauferThis case involved a lawsuit by a disability rights "tester" who sued a hotel for failing to provide accessibility information on its website, despite having no intention of visiting the property. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the lower court's judgment as moot because the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her pending lawsuits.Decided 22-429