Supreme Court Opinions

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. The case was decided on April 30, 2025. Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the Federal Aviation Administration and a Coast...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the phrase “entitled… to benefits” include all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received? The case was decided on April 29, 2025. In this case, a group of over 200 hospitals claimed that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) miscalculated their Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) adju...

In this case, the court considered this issue: When a noncitizen’s voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, is a motion to reopen filed the next business day sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U-S-C § 1229c(d)(1)? The case was decided on April 22, 2025. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate t...

The case involves the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department. The President issued a proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and remove these individuals. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against their rem...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a plaintiff state a claim under ERISA’s provision prohibiting a plan fiduciary from knowingly engaging in transactions with barred parties, solely by alleging that such a transaction took place? The case was decided on April 17, 2025. The Supreme Court held that To state a claim under Section 1106(a)(1)(C) of ERISA, a plaintiff need only plausibly...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Are economic harms resulting from personal injuries properly considered injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act? The case was decided on April 2, 2025. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Amy Cone...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Was the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act? The case was decided on April 2, 2025 The Court unanimously held that the FDA's decisions were neither arbitrary nor capricious. Specificall...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Did the ATF exceed its statutory authority in promulgating its Final Rule purporting to regulate so-called “ghost guns”? The case was decided on March 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the Gun Control Act of 1968 authorizes the ATF to regulate weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers that can be readily converted into functional firear...

In this case, the court considered this issue: May a bankruptcy trustee avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U-S-C § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy? The case was decided on March 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that Section 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code abrogates sovereign imm...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but which can be committed by failing to take action, have as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force? The case was decided on March 21, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necess...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the prohibition in 18 U-S-C § 1014 on making a “false statement” for the purposes of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies include making statements that are misleading but not false? The case was decided on March 21, 2025. In Thompson v United States, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that 18 U-S-C § 1014, which crimi...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Clean Water Act allow the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform? The case was d...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Must the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U-S-C § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U-S-C § 7261(b)(1)? The case was decided on March 5, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the Department of Veterans Affairs’ determination that evidence regarding a disab...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does an award of the “defendant's profits” under the Lanham Act allow a court to require the defendant to disgorge profits earned by legally separate, non-party corporate affiliates? The case was decided on February 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act limits recovery of profits in trademark infringement cases to those earned by th...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule 60(b)? The case was decided on February 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” wit...

In this case, the court considered this issue: May Oklahoma carry out the execution of Richard Glossip in light of the prosecutorial misconduct and other errors that affected his conviction and sentencing? The case was decided on February 25, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution’s failure to correct false testimony violated the Due Process Clause under Napue v Illinois. A conviction t...

 In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a party who obtains a preliminary injunction a “prevailing party” for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U-S-C § 1988? The case was decided on February 25, 2025. The Supreme Court held that a party that receives a preliminary injunction but does not obtain a final judgment on the merits before a case becomes moot is not a &quot...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Section 1983 claim brought in state court require the plaintiffs to first exhaust state administrative remedies? The case was decided on February 21, 2025. The Supreme Court held that where a state court’s application of a state exhaustion requirement in effect immunizes state officials from 42 U-S-C §1983 claims challenging delays in the admin...

In this case, the court considered these three issues: 1. Does historical commingling of assets suffice to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act? 2. Must a plaintiff make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raisi...

In the unanimous decision of Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath , the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the applicability of the False Claims Act (FCA) to reimbursement requests made under the E-Rate program, a federal initiative subsidizing internet and telecommunications services for schools and libraries. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that such reimbursem...

The case was decided on January 21, 2025. Brenda Andrew was convicted by an Oklahoma jury of murdering her husband, Rob Andrew, and was sentenced to death. During her trial, the prosecution introduced extensive evidence about her sex life and personal failings, which was later conceded to be irrelevant. Andrew argued in a federal habeas petition that this evidence was so prejudicial it violated th...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to TikTok, violate the First Amendment? The case was decided on January 17, 2025. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate TikTok’s Firs...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a plaintiff whose state-court lawsuit has been removed by the defendants to federal court seek to have the case sent back to state court by amending the complaint to omit all references to federal law? The case was decided on January 15, 2025. The Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff amends her complaint to delete the federal-law claims that e...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence? The case was decided on January 15, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to show that a...

In this case, the court considered whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review the Secretary of Homeland Security's discretionary decision to revoke an approved visa petition under 8 U-S-C §1155, based on a determination that a prior marriage was a sham. The case was decided on December 10, 2024. The Supreme Court held that Revocation of an approved visa petition based on a sham-marriag...