So Ordered

The Court holds that the FTC's statutory provision limiting the President's ability to remove Commissioners only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office violates the separation of powers. Because the FTC exercises quintessentially executive power — rulemaking, enforcement, and civil litigation — its Commissioners must be removable by the President at will, and Humphrey's Execut...

The Court holds that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are nonetheless "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and so are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. The Clause incorporates the common law rule of jus soli — citizenship by birth on the soil — subject only to the narrow exceptions recognized...

The Court denies the Government's request to stay a District Court injunction that bars President Trump from removing Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. On a narrow ground, the Court holds that the President failed to give Cook the notice and opportunity to respond that the Federal Reserve Act requires before a Governor may be removed for cause, so Cook remains in office whil...

The Court holds that an alien standing in Mexico does not "arrive in the United States" by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country — an alien arrives only when he crosses the border. As a result, the Immigration and Nationality Act neither entitles an alien stopped on the Mexican side of the border to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him. CASE: Mullin v....

The Court holds that a Hawaii law barring licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public unless the owner gives express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. By flipping the common-law default — under which anyone has an implied license to enter property held open to the public unless the owner withdraws consent — the la...

The Court holds that the Temporary Protected Status statute's judicial-review bar forecloses respondents' non-constitutional challenges to the termination of TPS for Syria and Haiti, reaching not only the Secretary's ultimate decision but also the subsidiary steps leading to it. It further holds that the Haitian challengers' equal protection claim — that Haiti's designation was ended because of ra...

The Court holds that individuals may not be held personally liable under a Spending Clause statute unless they have voluntarily and knowingly consented to answer lawsuits under it. Because the individual prison officers sued here never entered any agreement with the federal government to face liability under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the suit against them in their p...

The Court holds that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that resident as an applicant for admission. Commission of the crime is enough to regard the resident as seeking admission; the clear-and-convincing-evidence burden the Board...

The Court holds that a defendant's agreement not to appeal his sentence is unenforceable when enforcing it would result in a miscarriage of justice — that is, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious, obvious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. This is a high bar that ordinary mistakes in applying sentencing law cannot meet. The Court remands for the Fifth Circuit...

The Court holds that a district court's erroneous dismissal of a nondiverse party does not cure a diversity-jurisdiction defect that existed at the time a case was removed to federal court. Because the defect therefore lingered through judgment uncured, the Fifth Circuit correctly vacated the District Court's judgment in Hain's favor — a district court cannot manufacture jurisdiction through its o...

The Court holds that the objective-reasonableness standard it set in Brigham City v. Stuart governs warrantless home entries to render emergency aid, and that it applies without any further gloss. Officers need not have probable cause to believe an emergency is occurring; they may enter when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently...

The Court holds that the government's prosecution of Ali Hemani under Section 922(g)(3)'s unlawful user provision — which automatically disarms anyone who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance — is inconsistent with the Second Amendment as applied to him. The habitual drunkard laws the government offered as a historical analogue targeted different people, for different reasons, and worked...

The Court holds that two AEDPA provisions governing successive habeas filings by state prisoners do not reach federal prisoners. Section 2244(b)(3)(E)'s bar on certiorari does not strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over a federal prisoner's request to file a second or successive motion under Section 2255, and Section 2244(b)(1)'s old-claim bar — which forbids relitigating a claim raised in a...

The Court holds that whether a debtor's failure to disclose a claim in bankruptcy was "inadvertent or mistaken" — the showing that can excuse applying judicial estoppel to bar a later lawsuit on that claim — must be judged from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the omission. The Fifth Circuit erred by confining that inquiry to just two factors: whether the debtor knew the facts underly...

The Court holds that a defendant charged under 18 U. S. C. § 1519 — which makes it a crime to knowingly falsify a document with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation — must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred, not in a district where the investigation was located. Because falsifying a document is the only conduct the statute proscribes, that act fixes venue; the stat...

The Court holds that Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act does not give private parties an implied right to sue for rescission of contracts that allegedly violate the Act. The provision is a mandate telling courts how to exercise their remedial power once parties are before them — not a grant of a right to sue — and Congress entrusted enforcement of the Act primarily to the Securities and E...

The Court holds unanimously that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, courts of appeals must review the immigration agency's determination that a given set of undisputed facts does not rise to the level of "persecution" under the deferential substantial-evidence standard — not de novo. The agency's persecution determination, both its factual findings and its application of the statute to tho...

The Court holds that a political candidate has Article III standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election. Congressman Michael Bost may therefore pursue his suit against Illinois's practice of counting mail-in ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day — without having to show that the rule risks costing him the election, a significant vote threshold, or...

The Court holds that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Because tariffs are a branch of the taxing power that Article I of the Constitution assigns to Congress alone, the President must identify clear congressional authorization to impose them — and IEEPA's grant of authority to "regulate . . . importation," which never menti...

The Court holds that a federal prisoner who collaterally attacks the validity of his conviction must proceed through the habeas statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2255, and cannot use a motion for compassionate release under 18 U. S. C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) as a substitute. The supposed invalidity of a conviction is not among the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that justify compassionate release; channeling...

The Court holds that the Securities and Exchange Commission need not prove that investors suffered a pecuniary loss before it may obtain a disgorgement award against a securities-law violator. Under traditional equitable principles, a court may strip a wrongdoer of the gains attributable to his unlawful conduct even when his victims cannot show any measurable financial harm, so a finding of pecuni...

The Court holds that when Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive — as it did with the First Step Act's change to the "stacked" mandatory minimums of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) — the resulting disparity between a prisoner's existing sentence and the shorter one he would receive today cannot be an "extraordinary and compelling" reason warranting a sentence reduction under the compassio...

The Court holds that under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, a plaintiff need not show the defendant trafficked in the plaintiff's particular property interest; using the underlying confiscated physical property is enough. Four cruise lines that embarked passengers from docks in the Port of Havana between 2016 and 2019 used 'property which was confiscated by the Cuban G...

The Court holds that a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act's Section 1 exemption — which excludes from the Act contracts of employment of transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce — without ever crossing state lines or interacting with a vehicle that does. CASE: Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock AUTHOR: Gorsuc...

The Court holds that a state common-law negligent-hiring claim against a transportation broker is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, because the Act's safety exception preserves state authority to regulate motor-vehicle safety — including the ordinary-care duty owed by those who choose which carrier will move goods on the highway. CASE: Montgomery v. Caribe Tra...