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

By term

October Term 2024 (2024–2025)

62 casesRecap
  • Before Arguments0
  • Awaiting Decision0
  • Decided62
  • Dismissed0
62 of 62 tracked cases in October Term 2024 (2024–2025) have a decision on the record.

Term tracker

Every published case, by stage

Decided Cases

62
DecidedArrests for protected speechHoward Goldey, Associate Warden, et al., Petitioners v. Andrew Fields, III, et al.The Supreme Court reversed a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Goldey v. Fields and sent the case back to lower courts for further review. The Court found this case was meaningfully different from previous cases where it had recognized certain legal principles.Decided 24-809DecidedCourts blocking policies nationwideDonald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Applicants v. CASA, Inc., et al.This case addresses whether federal district courts possess the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions that block the enforcement of executive orders against non-parties nationwide. The Supreme Court held that such broad relief likely exceeds the traditional equitable powers granted to federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789.Decided 24A884DecidedHealth task force appointmentsRobert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Petitioners v. Braidwood Management, Inc., et al.The Court considered whether the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose members determine mandatory insurance coverage for preventive care, violates the Constitution's Appointments Clause. The Court held that the Task Force members are inferior officers properly appointed and supervised by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, reversing the lower court's decision.Decided 24-316DecidedAge checks on porn sitesFree Speech Coalition, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of TexasThe Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify the age of users, ruling that the requirement is subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny. The Court found that the law constitutionally balances the state's interest in protecting minors from harmful content with the incidental burden placed on adults' access to protected speech.Decided 23-1122DecidedFCC power to collect service feesFederal Communications Commission, et al., Petitioners v. Consumers' Research, et al.The Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not violate the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the FCC to collect contributions for the Universal Service Fund, nor did the FCC violate the Constitution by using a private administrator to assist with those collections. The Court found that the statutory scheme provided sufficient guidance to constrain the agency's discretion and that the FCC retained ultimate authority over the private administrator.Decided 24-354DecidedReligious opt-outs in schoolsTamer Mahmoud, et al., Petitioners v. Thomas W. Taylor, et al.Parents sued a Maryland school board for eliminating the ability to opt their elementary-aged children out of curriculum featuring LGBTQ+ storybooks, arguing the mandatory instruction violated their religious rights. The Supreme Court held that the no-opt-out policy unconstitutionally burdened the parents' free exercise of religion by substantially interfering with their ability to guide their children's religious development.Decided 24-297DecidedDeath row DNA testingRuben Gutierrez, Petitioner v. Luis Saenz, et al.The Supreme Court ruled that a Texas death-row inmate has legal standing to sue state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge the constitutionality of state laws restricting post-conviction DNA testing. The decision reversed a lower court ruling that had found the inmate's injury was not redressable because a favorable judgment might not guarantee access to the evidence.Decided 23-7809DecidedChoice of Medicaid providersEunice Medina, Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Petitioner v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al.The Supreme Court held that the Medicaid Act's "any qualified provider" provision does not create a private right enforceable by beneficiaries under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court ruled that the statute addresses state duties rather than unambiguously conferring individual rights, meaning beneficiaries cannot sue states to enforce their choice of a specific medical provider.Decided 23-1275DecidedImmigration appeal deadlinesPierre Yassue Nashun Riley, Petitioner v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney GeneralThe Supreme Court ruled that the 30-day deadline for filing a petition for review of a removal order is a mandatory claims-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional requirement, meaning it can be waived or forfeited. The Court also determined that a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying Convention Against Torture relief in a withholding-only proceeding does not constitute a final order of removal for triggering this deadline.Decided 23-1270DecidedSentence reductions after resentencingTony R. Hewitt, Petitioner v. United StatesThe Supreme Court ruled that the First Step Act's reduced sentencing penalties apply to defendants whose original sentences were imposed before the Act's enactment but were later vacated and required resentencing after the Act took effect. The Court determined that a vacated sentence is not considered to have been "imposed" for the purposes of the statute, allowing these defendants to benefit from the newer, more lenient laws.Decided 23-1002DecidedCourt review of agency viewsMcLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc., Petitioner v. McKesson Corporation, et al.The Supreme Court ruled that the Hobbs Act does not require federal district courts to automatically accept the Federal Communication Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act during enforcement proceedings. The decision clarifies that district courts retain the authority to independently review whether an agency's interpretation of a statute is correct.Decided 23-1226DecidedRetailers challenging FDA denialsFood and Drug Administration, et al., Petitioners v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., et al.The Supreme Court considered whether retailers of tobacco products have the legal standing to challenge the FDA's denial of a manufacturer's marketing application. The Court ruled that the Tobacco Control Act's language permitting "any person adversely affected" to seek review extends to retailers, not just the manufacturers who applied for approval.Decided 23-1187DecidedU.S. courts in terrorism lawsuitsMiriam Fuld, et al., Petitioners v. Palestine Liberation Organization, et al.The Court ruled 9–0 that the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act may allow U.S. courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority in certain terrorism-related lawsuits. The Court held that the law does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because it reasonably connects jurisdiction to conduct involving the United States and to foreign-policy interests of the federal government.Decided 24-20DecidedWho can challenge EV rulesDiamond Alternative Energy, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.The Supreme Court ruled that fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA-approved California regulations requiring more electric vehicles, finding that the producers sufficiently demonstrated that invalidating the rules would likely redress their economic injuries. The decision reversed a lower court holding that the producers failed to prove automakers would manufacture fewer electric vehicles in the absence of the regulations.Decided 24-7DecidedDisability rights after retirementKaryn D. Stanley, Petitioner v. City of Sanford, FloridaThis case addressed whether a retired firefighter could sue her former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for reducing her post-retirement health benefits. The Supreme Court ruled that the ADA's protections apply only to individuals who currently hold or desire a job, not to former employees who have already retired.Decided 23-997DecidedEdgardo Esteras, Petitioner v. United StatesThe Supreme Court ruled that when a district court decides whether to revoke a defendant's supervised release and impose a prison sentence, it cannot consider retributive factors such as the seriousness of the offense or the need for just punishment. The Court held that the relevant statute explicitly excludes these specific sentencing factors, emphasizing that supervised release is intended for rehabilitation rather than additional punishment for the original crime.Decided 23-7483DecidedMedical care for transgender minorsUnited States, Petitioner v. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter for Tennessee, et al.The Supreme Court reviewed a Tennessee law that prohibits healthcare providers from administering certain medical treatments, such as puberty blockers and hormones, to minors for the purpose of gender transition. The Court determined that the ban does not discriminate based on sex and satisfies rational basis review, thereby upholding the state's authority to regulate these medical procedures for minors.Decided 23-477DecidedJury trials over prison grievancesThomas Perttu, Petitioner v. Kyle Brandon RichardsThe Supreme Court held that prisoners are entitled to a jury trial on the issue of exhausting administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act when factual disputes about exhaustion are intertwined with the merits of a claim protected by the Seventh Amendment. The case arose after an inmate alleged that prison officials prevented him from filing grievances regarding sexual abuse and retaliation.Decided 23-1324DecidedNuclear waste storage permitsNuclear Regulatory Commission, et al., Petitioners v. Texas, et al.The Supreme Court ruled that only parties who formally intervened in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing proceedings can challenge its final orders in court under the Hobbs Act, and affirmed the Commission's authority to license private facilities for storing spent nuclear fuel away from reactor sites.Decided 23-1300DecidedWhere refinery exemption appeals goEnvironmental Protection Agency, Petitioner v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., et al.The Court held that EPA’s denials of individual small-refinery petitions for exemptions from the Renewable Fuel Standard were locally or regionally applicable actions, but were based on determinations with nationwide scope or effect. Therefore, challenges to those denials had to be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, not the Fifth Circuit; the Court vacated and remanded the Fifth Circuit’s decision.Decided 23-1229DecidedRepeat challenges to imprisonmentDanny Richard Rivers, Petitioner v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions DivisionThe Supreme Court held that any federal habeas petition filed after a district court has entered judgment on a first petition counts as a "second or successive" application subject to strict procedural limits, even if an appeal of the first petition is still pending. This ruling clarifies that the entry of judgment, rather than the conclusion of the appellate process, triggers the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's restrictions on repeat filings.Decided 23-1345DecidedAppeal filing deadlinesDonte Parrish, Petitioner v. United StatesThe Supreme Court held that a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original deadline but before a court formally grants a request to reopen the appeal period does not need to file a second notice, as the premature notice relates forward to the date of reopening.Decided 24-275DecidedFederal liability for wrong-house raidsCurtrina Martin, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of G. W., a Minor, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al.The Court unanimously vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling against Martin and the other plaintiffs in their Federal Tort Claims Act suit over an FBI wrong-house raid. It held that the Supremacy Clause is not a defense to FTCA claims and that the FTCA’s law-enforcement proviso does not override the separate discretionary-function exception; the case was sent back for further consideration of whether that exception applies and whether Georgia law would impose liability.Decided 24-362DecidedWhen tax levy disputes endCommissioner of Internal Revenue, Petitioner v. Jennifer ZuchThe Supreme Court held that a Tax Court proceeding challenging an IRS levy becomes moot and must be dismissed if the IRS abandons the proposed levy, meaning taxpayers must pursue any remaining disputes about tax liability through a separate refund suit.Decided 24-416DecidedDisability discrimination in schoolsA. J. T., By and Through Her Parents, A. T. & G. T., Petitioner v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, et al.The Supreme Court unanimously held that students bringing disability-discrimination claims about educational services under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Rehabilitation Act do not have to prove that school officials acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” The Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s decision and ruled that these students are subject to the same standards as plaintiffs in other disability-discrimination cases.Decided 24-249DecidedLimits on veterans’ back paySimon A. Soto, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioner v. United StatesThe Supreme Court ruled that the statute governing Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) for disabled veterans establishes its own claims settlement process, thereby superseding the Barring Act's default six-year statute of limitations for claims against the government. This decision allows veterans like Simon Soto to recover retroactive benefits beyond the six-year cap previously imposed by the military.Decided 24-320DecidedMajority-group job discriminationMarlean A. Ames, Petitioner v. Ohio Department of Youth ServicesThe Supreme Court unanimously held that plaintiffs from majority groups do not face a higher evidentiary burden than minority plaintiffs when proving employment discrimination under Title VII. The Court rejected a lower court's "background circumstances" rule, affirming that the law protects all individuals equally regardless of group membership.Decided 23-1039DecidedForeign governments in US courtsCC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited, et al., Petitioners v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., et al.The Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act need not prove that the foreign state has "minimum contacts" with the United States for a federal court to exercise personal jurisdiction. The Court held that jurisdiction is established solely by meeting the Act's statutory requirements for subject-matter jurisdiction and proper service of process.Decided 23-1201DecidedInjury requirements for class actionsLaboratory Corporation of America Holdings, dba Labcorp, Petitioner v. Luke Davis, et al.This case involved a dispute over whether a class action lawsuit could proceed against LabCorp regarding inaccessible check-in kiosks for visually impaired individuals, specifically addressing if a class can be certified when some members have not suffered a concrete injury. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving the lower court's decision in place without issuing a ruling on the merits.Decided 24-304DecidedReligious tax exemptionsCatholic Charities Bureau, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, et al.The Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by denying a tax exemption to Catholic Charities Bureau because the organization's charitable activities were deemed "secular" rather than religious. The Court held that the state cannot condition religious tax exemptions on specific theological practices, such as proselytizing or serving only members of the same faith.Decided 24-154DecidedGunmaker liability for cartel violenceSmith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Estados Unidos MexicanosThe Supreme Court held that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bars Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers for facilitating cartel violence. The Court ruled that Mexico failed to plausibly allege that the manufacturers intentionally aided and abetted illegal gun trafficking, a necessary requirement to bypass the Act's liability protections.Decided 23-1141DecidedChanging a complaint after judgmentBLOM Bank SAL, Petitioner v. Michal Honickman, et al.The Supreme Court held that a party seeking to reopen a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, even if their goal is merely to file an amended complaint. The Court rejected the argument that the more lenient standard for amending pleadings under Rule 15(a) should relax the strict requirements for vacating a judgment.Decided 23-1259DecidedLimits on environmental reviewsSeven County Infrastructure Coalition, et al., Petitioners v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al.This case addressed whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to evaluate environmental impacts, such as upstream oil drilling or downstream refining, that fall outside their regulatory authority when approving a project. The Supreme Court held that agencies are not required to study such remote environmental effects if they lack the power to regulate the underlying activities causing them.Decided 23-975DecidedFraud without financial lossStamatios Kousisis and Alpha Painting and Construction Co., Inc., Petitioners v. United StatesThe Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for wire fraud, ruling that a defendant can be guilty of fraud for inducing a victim to enter a transaction through material lies, even if the defendant did not intend to cause the victim any financial loss. The case involved a scheme to secure government contracts by falsely claiming to use disadvantaged business enterprises.Decided 23-909DecidedReligious schools in charter programsOklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, et al., Petitioners v. Gentner Drummond, Attorney General of Oklahoma, ex rel. OklahomaThis case involves a dispute over whether a state can authorize a religious charter school, specifically focusing on whether the school's actions count as state action and if excluding religious schools from charter programs violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision by an equally divided vote, leaving in place the ruling that invalidated the contract with the Catholic virtual charter school.Decided 24-394DecidedPolice use of forceJanice Hughes Barnes, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Ashtian Barnes, Deceased, Petitioner v. Roberto Felix, Jr., et al.The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Fifth Circuit's "moment of the threat" doctrine, ruling that Fourth Amendment excessive force claims must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances rather than solely the split-second an officer uses force. The decision clarifies that courts must consider relevant events leading up to a shooting, not just the immediate instant of the threat.Decided 23-1239DecidedPay for federal reservistsNick Feliciano, Petitioner v. Department of TransportationThis case concerns whether a federal civilian employee who is also a military reservist is entitled to differential pay when called to active duty during a national emergency, regardless of whether their specific duties are directly related to that emergency. The Supreme Court ruled that the statute only requires the service to occur temporally during a declared emergency, not that it be substantively connected to it.Decided 23-861DecidedCash benefits in hospital ratesAdvocate Christ Medical Center, et al., Petitioners v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human ServicesThis case concerns the calculation of Medicare reimbursement rates for hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The Supreme Court held that for the purpose of this calculation, a patient is considered "entitled to benefits" under Supplemental Security Income (SSI) only if they are actually eligible to receive a cash payment during the month of their hospitalization.Decided 23-715DecidedImmigration departure deadlinesHugo Abisai Monsalvo Velazquez, Petitioner v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney GeneralThe Supreme Court ruled that when a noncitizen's statutory deadline for voluntary departure falls on a weekend or holiday, it automatically extends to the next business day. This decision allows individuals to file motions to reopen their cases on the following Monday without facing penalties for failing to leave the country on the non-business day.Decided 23-929DecidedRetirement plan transactionsCasey Cunningham, et al., Petitioners v. Cornell University, et al.The Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs suing retirement plan fiduciaries under ERISA for engaging in prohibited transactions need only allege that the transaction occurred, not that it failed to qualify for statutory exemptions. The Court determined that exemptions for reasonable and necessary services are affirmative defenses that defendants must prove, rather than elements plaintiffs must disprove in their initial complaint.Decided 23-1007DecidedTriple damages for injury lossesMedical Marijuana, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Douglas J. HornThe Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can sue for triple damages under the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for economic losses to their business or property, even if those financial losses were caused by a personal injury. The decision arose from a case where a truck driver lost his job after failing a drug test due to a CBD product that falsely claimed to contain no THC.Decided 23-365DecidedFlavored e-cigarette approvalsFood and Drug Administration, Petitioner v. Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C., dba Triton Distribution, et al.The Supreme Court ruled that the FDA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it denied applications to market flavored e-cigarette products, finding the agency's requirement for robust scientific evidence was consistent with the Tobacco Control Act. The Court also clarified the harmless-error standard under the Administrative Procedure Act, determining that the FDA's failure to review marketing plans did not prejudice the outcome.Decided 23-1038DecidedWhere EPA challenges are heardOklahoma, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.This case addresses whether challenges to the EPA's rejection of state air quality plans must be heard exclusively in the D.C. Circuit Court or in regional circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act requires such challenges to be reviewed in regional courts when the EPA's action is locally or regionally applicable, even if the agency published multiple state disapprovals in a single notice.Decided 23-1067DecidedGovernment immunity in bankruptcyUnited States, Petitioner v. David L. MillerThe Supreme Court held that while the Bankruptcy Code waives the federal government's sovereign immunity for certain claims, this waiver does not extend to state-law fraudulent transfer claims that a trustee attempts to bring against the IRS, because a private creditor could not have sued the government under state law outside of bankruptcy.Decided 23-824DecidedRules for ghost gunsPamela Bondi, Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. Jennifer VanDerStok, et al.This case determined whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) acted within its authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 when it issued a rule regulating "ghost guns"—weapon parts kits and unfinished frames that can be readily assembled into functional firearms. The Supreme Court upheld the ATF's rule, finding that such kits and components fall within the statutory definition of a firearm.Decided 23-852DecidedMisleading statements to banksPatrick D. Thompson, Petitioner v. United StatesThe Supreme Court ruled that a federal statute prohibiting false statements to financial institutions does not criminalize statements that are merely misleading but factually true. The Court held that the word "false" in 18 U.S.C. § 1014 means "not true," and therefore the law does not cover deceptive statements that are technically accurate.Decided 23-1095DecidedViolent crimes by inactionSalvatore Delligatti, Petitioner v. United StatesThe Supreme Court held that a crime requiring proof of bodily injury or death constitutes a "crime of violence" under federal law, even if the crime can be committed through inaction or omission rather than an affirmative act. The Court reasoned that intentionally causing physical harm, regardless of the method, necessarily involves the use of physical force.Decided 23-825DecidedBenefit of doubt for veteransJoshua E. Bufkin, Petitioner v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans AffairsThis case concerns the standard of review the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must use when examining whether the Department of Veterans Affairs properly applied the "benefit-of-the-doubt" rule to disability claims. The Supreme Court held that the VA's determination that evidence is in "approximate balance" is a factual finding subject to clear-error review, rather than a legal conclusion subject to de novo review.Decided 23-713DecidedWastewater permit limitsCity and County of San Francisco, California, Petitioner v. Environmental Protection AgencyThe Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include generic "end-result" provisions in wastewater discharge permits that hold permittees liable for water quality standards without specifying the concrete limits they must meet. The decision reversed a lower court ruling, emphasizing that the EPA must define specific compliance measures rather than forcing permit holders to determine how to achieve broad water quality goals.Decided 23-753DecidedProfits from related companiesDewberry Group, Inc., fka Dewberry Capital Corporation, Petitioner v. Dewberry Engineers Inc.The Supreme Court ruled that under the Lanham Act, a trademark infringement plaintiff can only recover profits earned by the named defendant, not those earned by legally separate, non-party corporate affiliates. The decision reinforces the principle of corporate separateness, preventing courts from treating distinct entities as a single unit for calculating damages unless the corporate veil is pierced.Decided 23-900DecidedReopening voluntarily dismissed lawsuitsGary Waetzig, Petitioner v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses their lawsuit without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) can later ask a court to reopen the case under Rule 60(b). The Court determined that such a dismissal qualifies as a "final proceeding," allowing district courts to correct mistakes or provide relief even after a case has been voluntarily withdrawn.Decided 23-971DecidedProsecutors withholding evidenceRichard Eugene Glossip, Petitioner v. OklahomaThis case involves a death row inmate seeking to overturn his conviction based on new evidence that prosecutors suppressed information about a key witness's mental health and potential recantation. The Court considered whether the state's failure to disclose this evidence violated the defendant's due process rights.Decided 22-7466DecidedAttorney fees after injunctionGerald F. Lackey, in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, Petitioner v. Damian Stinnie, et al.The Supreme Court considered whether plaintiffs who obtain a preliminary injunction but whose case becomes moot before a final judgment are eligible for attorney's fees as "prevailing parties" under federal civil rights law. The Court ruled that a preliminary injunction alone does not confer prevailing party status because it is a temporary measure rather than a conclusive resolution of the claims on the merits.Decided 23-621DecidedState remedies before civil rights suitsNancy Williams, et al., Petitioners v. Greg Reed, Secretary, Alabama Department of WorkforceThe Supreme Court ruled that Alabama cannot require plaintiffs to exhaust state administrative remedies before filing a Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit in state court when doing so would effectively immunize officials from liability for administrative delays. The Court held that such state exhaustion rules are preempted by federal law because they create procedural barriers that nullify federally guaranteed rights.Decided 23-191DecidedSchool internet funding fraud claimsWisconsin Bell, Inc., Petitioner v. United States, ex rel. Todd HeathThe Supreme Court ruled that reimbursement requests submitted to the FCC's E-Rate program are subject to the False Claims Act because the federal government provides at least a portion of the program's funding. The unanimous decision affirmed that the government's role in collecting and distributing funds, even if they originate from private carriers, satisfies the statutory requirement that the government "provide" the money.Decided 23-1127DecidedSeized property and U.S. tiesRepublic of Hungary, et al., Petitioners v. Rosalie Simon, et al.This case involves Holocaust survivors suing the Hungarian government for property confiscated during World War II, relying on the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that merely alleging that proceeds from seized property were commingled with general government funds is insufficient to establish the required commercial connection to the United States.Decided 23-867DecidedUnfair trial evidenceAndrew v. WhiteThe Supreme Court vacated a lower court decision regarding the admission of evidence about the defendant's extramarital affairs, holding that clearly established federal law prohibits the erroneous admission of unduly prejudicial evidence if it renders a trial fundamentally unfair.Decided 23-6573DecidedTikTok ban and free speechTikTok Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney GeneralThe Supreme Court upheld a federal law requiring TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest the platform or face a ban in the United States. The Court ruled that the law did not violate the First Amendment because it was a content-neutral measure tailored to address national security concerns regarding foreign adversary control of sensitive user data.Decided 24-656DecidedProving overtime exemptionsE.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Faustino Sanchez Carrera, et al.The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers must prove an employee falls under a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than the higher clear and convincing evidence standard. The case arose when sales representatives sued a food distributor for unpaid overtime, and the employer argued they were exempt as outside salesmen.Decided 23-217DecidedRoyal Canin U.S.A., Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Anastasia Wullschleger, et al.The Supreme Court ruled that when a plaintiff amends their complaint to remove all federal claims after a case has been moved to federal court, the federal court loses jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the amended complaint, meaning the case must be sent back to state court once the federal questions are gone.Decided 23-677DecidedReview of visa revocationsAmina Bouarfa, Petitioner v. Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the Department of Homeland Security's decision to revoke a previously approved visa petition, even when based on a finding of a sham marriage. The Court determined that such revocations are discretionary agency decisions that Congress has specifically shielded from judicial review.Decided 23-583DecidedDeath penalty and IQ scoresHamm v. SmithState officials in Alabama asked the Supreme Court to vacate a stay of execution granted to death row inmate Kenneth Eugene Smith, whose execution was halted by lower courts. The case also involved disputes over Smith's intellectual disability and IQ scores in relation to his eligibility for the death penalty.Decided 23-167