Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara et al.
The respondents prevailed in that the Court affirmed the District Court's preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Executive Order No. 14160.
No. 25-365 · Decided June 30, 2026 · Affirmed
Roberts · 5–4
Does the Constitution guarantee citizenship to children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country?
Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Slaughter
The petitioner (President Trump) prevailed on the claim that the FTC's for-cause removal provision is unconstitutional.
No. 25-332 · Decided June 29, 2026 · Reversed and remanded
Roberts · 6–3
Does the for-cause removal provision for Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioners under 15 U.S.C. §41 violate the separation of powers?
Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Slaughter
The petitioner (President Trump) prevailed on the claim that the FTC's for-cause removal provision is unconstitutional.
No. 25-332 · Decided June 29, 2026 · Reversed and remanded
Roberts · 6–3
Does the for-cause removal provision for Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioners under 15 U.S.C. §41 violate the separation of powers?
West Virginia et al. v. B. P. J., by Her Next Friend and Mother, Heather Jackson
The petitioners (West Virginia and Idaho) prevailed on the grounds that their respective state laws maintaining female sports for biological females are lawful.
No. 24-43 · Decided June 30, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Kavanaugh · 6–3
Whether schools may maintain women’s and girls’ sports teams for biological females under Title IX.
United States v. Hemani
The respondent, Ali Hemani, prevailed in that the Court affirmed the dismissal of the indictment against him.
No. 24-1234 · Decided June 18, 2026 · Affirmed
Gorsuch · 9–0 · unanimous
Does the government's prosecution of an individual under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) for being an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance violate the Second Amendment?
National Republican Senatorial Committee et al. v. Federal Election Commission et al.
The petitioners prevailed in their challenge to the constitutionality of FECA's political-party coordinated-expenditure limits.
No. 24-621 · Decided June 30, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Kavanaugh · 6–3
Does the Federal Election Campaign Act’s (FECA) restriction on a political party’s spending in coordination with candidates violate the First Amendment?
Chatrie v. United States
The petitioner prevailed on the question of whether a Fourth Amendment search occurred, though the case was remanded to determine if the search was reasonable.
No. 25-112 · Decided June 29, 2026 · vacated and remanded
Kagan · 6–3
Did law enforcement officials conduct a search under the Fourth Amendment when they acquired petitioner's cell-phone location data from Google via a geofence warrant?
Louisiana v. Callais et al.
The respondent prevailed in that the Court affirmed the decision that Louisiana's SB8 map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
No. 24-109 · Decided April 29, 2026 · affirmed and remanded
Alito · 6–3
Does compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provide a compelling interest that justifies the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts under the Equal Protection Clause?
Chiles v. Salazar, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, et al.
The petitioner prevailed in obtaining a reversal of the Tenth Circuit's judgment.
No. 24-539 · Decided March 31, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Gorsuch · 8–1
Does Colorado's law prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in "conversion therapy" with minors violate the First Amendment when applied to talk therapy?
Chiles v. Salazar, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, et al.
The petitioner prevailed in that the Court reversed the judgment of the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.
No. 24-539 · Decided March 31, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Gorsuch · 8–1
Does Colorado's law prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in "conversion therapy" with minors violate the First Amendment when applied to talk therapy?
Mirabelli et al. v. Bonta, Attorney General of California, et al.
The parents (petitioners) prevailed in vacating the stay of the permanent injunction, while the teachers (petitioners) did not prevail.
No. 25A810 · Decided March 2, 2026
Per Curiam
Whether the Supreme Court should vacate a Ninth Circuit stay of a permanent injunction against California's student gender policies.
Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. Trump, President of the United States, et al.
The petitioners (and respondents in *V.O.S. Selections*) prevailed in that the Court held the President lacks the authority under IEEPA to impose the challenged tariffs.
No. 24-1287 · Decided February 20, 2026 · affirmed
Roberts · 6–3
Does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorize the President to impose tariffs?
Bost et al. v. Illinois State Board of Elections et al.
The petitioner, Congressman Michael Bost, prevailed on the issue of standing, and the judgment of the Seventh Circuit was reversed and remanded.
No. 24-568 · Decided January 14, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Roberts · 7–2
Whether political candidates have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge state rules governing the counting of votes in their elections.
Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State v. Republican National Committee et al.
The petitioner (Mississippi Secretary of State) prevailed on the challenge to the state's absentee ballot receipt deadline.
No. 24-1260 · Decided June 29, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Barrett · 5–4
Does the practice of counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later violate federal election-day statutes?
Wolford et al. v. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii
The petitioners prevailed in seeking to have the Hawaii law declared unconstitutional.
No. 24-1046 · Decided June 25, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Alito · 6–3
Does a Hawaii law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's express authorization violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments?
Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Doe et al.
The petitioner, Cisco Systems, Inc., prevailed on both the ATS and TVPA claims.
No. 24-856 · Decided June 23, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Barrett · 6–3
Can Cisco Systems, Inc. be held liable for aiding and abetting violations of international law under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS)?
Louisiana v. Callais et al.
The respondent prevailed in that the Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
No. 24-109 · Decided April 29, 2026 · affirmed and remanded
Alito · 6–3
Does Louisiana's congressional map (SB8) constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Cox Communications, Inc. et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment et al.
The petitioner (Cox Communications, Inc.) prevailed on the issue of contributory liability.
No. 24-171 · Decided March 25, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Thomas · 9–0 · unanimous
Does an Internet service provider incur contributory copyright liability under the Copyright Act by continuing to provide service to subscribers whose IP addresses are known to be associated with infringement?
Cox Communications, Inc. et al. v. Sony Music Entertainment et al.
The petitioner (Cox Communications, Inc.) prevailed on the issue of contributory liability.
No. 24-171 · Decided March 25, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Thomas · 9–0 · unanimous
Does an Internet service provider incur contributory copyright liability under the Copyright Act by continuing to provide service to subscribers whose IP addresses are known to be associated with infringement?
Pitts v. Mississippi
The petitioner prevailed on the claim that the use of the screen without a case-specific finding of necessity violated the Sixth Amendment, resulting in the reversal of the Mississippi Supreme Court's judgment.
No. 24-1159 · Decided November 24, 2025 · reversed and remanded
Per Curiam
Does the Sixth Amendment permit the use of a screen to obscure a child witness's view of the defendant based solely on a mandatory state statute?
Monsanto Co. v. Durnell
The petitioner (Monsanto Company) prevailed on the grounds that its failure-to-warn liability was expressly preempted by federal law.
No. 24-1068 · Decided June 25, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Kavanaugh · 7–2
Does the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempt a state-law failure-to-warn tort claim?
Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Doe et al.
The petitioners prevailed on the request to reverse the lower courts' orders that had postponed the termination of TPS designations for Syria and Haiti.
No. 25-1083 · Decided June 25, 2026 · Reversed and remanded
Alito · 6–3
Whether respondents challenging the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syria and Haiti are entitled to orders postponing those terminations during litigation.
Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Al Otro Lado et al.
The petitioner prevailed on the question of whether the Government is required to inspect and process asylum applications for aliens who are still standing in Mexico.
No. 25-5 · Decided June 25, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Alito · 6–3
The case asks when an alien seeking to enter the United States from Mexico "arrives in the United States" under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(1) and 1225(a)(1).
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba), et al.
The petitioner (Exxon Mobil Corp.) prevailed on the issue of whether the Helms-Burton Act waives the sovereign immunity of the Cuban government defendants.
No. 24-699 · Decided June 23, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Kavanaugh · 6–3
Does the Helms-Burton Act abrogate the foreign sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities?
Pung, Personal Representative of the Estate of Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan
The respondent prevailed on the holding that the auction price, not fair market value, is the constitutional baseline for just compensation.
No. 25-95 · Decided June 23, 2026 · Vacated and remanded
Alito · 9–0 · unanimous
Does the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause require the government to compensate a taxpayer based on the fair market value of their property or the actual auction sale price following a tax foreclosure?
Hunter v. United States
The petitioner prevailed in part, as the Court vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case to determine if the "miscarriage of justice" exception applies to his specific sentence.
No. 24-1063 · Decided June 18, 2026 · Vacated and remanded
Kagan · 8–1
When is a defendant's agreement not to appeal a criminal sentence unenforceable?
Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. At&T, Inc.
The petitioner (Federal Communications Commission) prevailed on the issue of whether its forfeiture proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment.
No. 25-406 · Decided June 4, 2026 · affirmed
Roberts · 8–1
Does the Federal Communications Commission's process of issuing monetary forfeiture orders without a jury trial violate the Seventh Amendment?
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport Ii, LLC,
The petitioner, Shawn Montgomery, prevailed on the issue of whether his negligent-hiring claim against C.H. Robinson is preempted by the FAAAA.
No. 24-1238 · Decided May 14, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Barrett · 9–0 · unanimous
Does the safety exception of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) permit negligent-hiring claims against transportation brokers?
Hencely v. Fluor Corp. et al.
The petitioner prevailed in that the Court vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case.
No. 24-924 · Decided April 22, 2026 · vacated and remanded
Thomas · 6–3
Does federal law preempt a state-law tort suit against a military contractor operating in a war zone?
Hencely v. Fluor Corp. et al.
The petitioner prevailed in having the judgment of the Fourth Circuit vacated and the case remanded.
No. 24-924 · Decided April 22, 2026 · vacated and remanded
Thomas · 6–3
Does federal law preempt a state-law tort suit against a military contractor for activities performed in a war zone?
Ellingburg v. United States
The petitioner prevailed in establishing that MVRA restitution is criminal punishment, resulting in the reversal of the Eighth Circuit's judgment.
No. 24-482 · Decided January 20, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Kavanaugh · 9–0 · unanimous
Does the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) impose criminal punishment for the purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause?
Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Lau
The petitioner prevailed on the issue of the evidentiary burden required at the border to deem a lawful permanent resident an applicant for admission.
No. 25-429 · Decided June 23, 2026 · vacated and remanded
Thomas · 6–3
Does the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) require a border officer to possess 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?
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission
The respondent (SEC) prevailed on the issue of whether a showing of pecuniary loss is required for disgorgement.
No. 25-466 · Decided June 4, 2026 · affirmed
Gorsuch · 9–0 · unanimous
Does the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) need to prove that victims of a securities-law violation suffered pecuniary loss as a condition of securing a disgorgement award?
Gary Richard Whitton v. Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
The petitioner prevailed in that the Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
No. 25-580 · Decided June 1, 2026
Per Curiam
Whether a federal court may consider post-trial evidence that was not presented to the jury when determining if a constitutional error was harmless.
Flowers Foods, Inc. et al. v. Brock
The respondent prevailed on the issue of whether he qualified for the 9 U.S.C. §1 exemption to avoid compelled arbitration.
No. 24-935 · Decided May 28, 2026 · affirmed
Gorsuch · 9–0 · unanimous
Does a worker qualify for the exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act under 9 U.S.C. §1 if they never cross state lines?
Flowers Foods, Inc. et al. v. Brock
The respondent prevailed on the issue of whether he qualified for the 9 U.S.C. § 1 exemption, thereby avoiding compelled arbitration.
No. 24-935 · Decided May 28, 2026 · affirmed
Gorsuch · 9–0 · unanimous
Does a worker qualify for the exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) under 9 U.S.C. § 1 if they never cross state lines?
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport Ii, LLC, et al.
The petitioner, Shawn Montgomery, prevailed on the issue of whether his negligent-hiring claim against C.H. Robinson was preempted by the FAAAA.
No. 24-1238 · Decided May 14, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Barrett · 9–0 · unanimous
Does the safety exception of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) permit negligent-hiring claims against brokers who coordinate shipments in the transportation industry?
First Choice Women’S Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey
The petitioner prevailed on the issue of Article III standing, resulting in the reversal of the Third Circuit's judgment and a remand for further proceedings.
No. 24-781 · Decided April 29, 2026 · Reversed and remanded
Gorsuch · 9–0 · unanimous
Does a nonprofit organization have Article III standing to challenge a government subpoena in federal court if the subpoena demands private donor information?
First Choice Women’S Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey
The petitioner prevailed on the issue of whether it had Article III standing to challenge the subpoena in federal court.
No. 24-781 · Decided April 29, 2026 · Reversed and remanded
Gorsuch · 9–0 · unanimous
Does a government subpoena demanding private donor information create a present injury to First Amendment associational rights sufficient to confer Article III standing?
Rico v. United States
Petitioner Isabel Rico prevailed on the argument that her January 2022 drug offense could not be treated as a supervised release violation because her term had already expired.
No. 24-1056 · Decided March 25, 2026 · Reversed and remanded
Gorsuch · 8–1
Does the Sentencing Reform Act authorize a rule that automatically extends a defendant's term of supervised release when the defendant absconds?
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi
The petitioner prevailed in that the Court reversed the lower court's judgment, allowing his suit for prospective injunctive relief to proceed.
No. 24-993 · Decided March 20, 2026 · Reversed and remanded
Kagan · 9–0 · unanimous
Does the decision in *Heck v. Humphrey* bar a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that seeks only prospective relief?
Urias-Orellana et al. v. Bondi, Attorney General
The respondent prevailed because the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which had applied the substantial-evidence standard to uphold the removal order.
No. 24-777 · Decided March 4, 2026 · affirmed
Jackson · 9–0 · unanimous
Whether courts of appeals must apply substantial-evidence review to the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination of whether a given set of undisputed facts constitutes “persecution” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
United States Postal Service et al. v. Konan
The petitioner (United States Postal Service) prevailed on the issue of whether the postal exception bars claims for intentional nondelivery of mail.
No. 24-351 · Decided February 24, 2026 · vacated and remanded
Thomas · 5–4
Does the postal exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) bar lawsuits based on the intentional nondelivery of mail?
Trump, President of the United States v. Cook, Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, et al.
Respondent Cook prevailed: the Court denied the President's stay application, leaving the preliminary injunction in effect so that she remains on the Board of Governors during the litigation.
No. 25A312 · Decided June 29, 2026 · Application for stay denied
Roberts · 5–4
This case asks whether a preliminary injunction preventing President Trump from removing Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors should remain in effect while litigation over her removal proceeds.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety et al.
The respondents prevailed on the issue of whether the individual officers could be sued in their personal capacities under RLUIPA.
No. 23-1197 · Decided June 23, 2026 · affirmed
Gorsuch · 6–3
Does the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) permit plaintiffs to sue nonconsenting state employees in their personal capacities for damages?
T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation et al.
The respondents (University of Maryland Medical System Corporation et al.) prevailed as the Court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint.
No. 25-197 · Decided June 18, 2026 · affirmed
Sotomayor · 5–4
Does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bar federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers seeking review and rejection of state-court judgments rendered before district court proceedings commenced?
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. et al. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, LTD., et al.
The petitioners (the Funds) prevailed on the issue of whether Section 47(b) of the ICA provides a private right of action to sue for contract rescission.
No. 24-345 · Decided June 11, 2026 · Reversed and remanded
Barrett · 6–3
Does Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA) impliedly empower private parties to sue for rescission of any contract that allegedly violates the Act?
Abouammo v. United States
The petitioner prevailed on the issue of improper venue, resulting in the reversal of the Ninth Circuit's judgment.
No. 25-5146 · Decided June 11, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Kagan · 9–0 · unanimous
Whether a defendant charged with violating 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.
Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.
The petitioner prevailed because the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.
No. 25-6 · Decided June 11, 2026 · Vacated and remanded
Jackson · 9–0 · unanimous
How should a court determine if a debtor's failure to disclose a claim in a bankruptcy proceeding was "inadvertent or mistaken" for the purpose of applying judicial estoppel?
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. et al. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al.
The petitioner, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., prevailed on its motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
No. 24-889 · Decided June 4, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Jackson · 9–0 · unanimous
Whether a complaint for active inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) states a plausible claim if it relies on statements that a third party could plausibly read as instructions to infringe.
Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. v. Evan Milligan, et al.
Petitioner (Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al.) prevailed in obtaining a stay of the District Court's injunctions.
No. 25A1314 · Decided June 2, 2026
Per Curiam
Whether the Supreme Court should grant a stay of District Court injunctions that prevented Alabama from using its 2023 congressional map.
Fernandez v. United States
The respondent prevailed, as the Court affirmed the Second Circuit's decision reversing the grant of compassionate release to the petitioner.
No. 24-556 · Decided May 28, 2026 · affirmed
Barrett · 8–1
Does 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i) allow a district court to reduce a prisoner's sentence based on "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that challenge the validity of the underlying conviction?
Rutherford v. United States
The respondent (United States) prevailed on the issue of whether nonretroactive sentencing disparities qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release.
No. 24-820 · Decided May 28, 2026 · affirmed
Barrett · 6–3
Does the sentencing disparity created by a nonretroactive change to 18 U.S.C. §924(c) constitute an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for a sentence reduction?
Fernandez v. United States
The respondent prevailed on the issue of whether challenges to the validity of a conviction are cognizable as "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for compassionate release.
No. 24-556 · Decided May 28, 2026 · affirmed
Barrett · 8–1
Does 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) allow a district court to reduce a prisoner's sentence based on "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that challenge the validity of the underlying conviction?
Rutherford v. United States
The respondent prevailed, as the Court affirmed the lower court rulings denying the petitioners' requests for sentence reductions.
No. 24-820 · Decided May 28, 2026 · affirmed
Barrett · 6–3
Whether the sentencing disparity created by a nonretroactive change to sentencing law constitutes an "extraordinary and compelling reason" that warrants a sentence reduction.
Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD., et al.
The petitioner, Havana Docks Corporation, prevailed on the issue of whether the cruise lines' use of the docks constituted trafficking in confiscated property.
No. 24-983 · Decided May 21, 2026 · vacated and remanded
Thomas · 8–1
Does the phrase "property which was confiscated" in Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act refer only to the specific property interest held by the plaintiff?
Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD., et al.
The petitioner, Havana Docks Corporation, prevailed on the issue of whether the cruise lines' use of the docks constituted trafficking in confiscated property.
No. 24-983 · Decided May 21, 2026 · vacated and remanded
Thomas · 8–1
Does the phrase "property which was confiscated" in Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act refer only to the specific property interest held by the plaintiff, or can it refer to the underlying physical property?
Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties et al.
The respondents prevailed on the issue of whether the District Court had jurisdiction to confirm the arbitral award.
No. 25-83 · Decided May 14, 2026 · Affirmed
Sotomayor · 9–0 · unanimous
Does a federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under §3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) have jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award on those claims?
Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties et al.
The respondent prevailed on the issue of whether the District Court had jurisdiction to confirm the arbitral award.
No. 25-83 · Decided May 14, 2026 · Affirmed
Sotomayor · 9–0 · unanimous
Does a federal court that has previously stayed claims in a pending action under § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) have jurisdiction to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award on those claims?
Enbridge Energy, LP, et al. v. Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, on Behalf of the People of the State of Michigan
The respondent prevailed on the issue of whether the removal was untimely, resulting in the affirmation of the remand to Michigan state court.
No. 24-783 · Decided April 22, 2026 · affirmed
Sotomayor · 9–0 · unanimous
Does the 30-day removal deadline established by 28 U. S. C. §1446(b)(1) allow for equitable tolling?
Enbridge Energy, LP, et al. v. Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, on Behalf of the People of the State of Michigan
The respondent prevailed on the issue of whether the removal was untimely, resulting in the case being remanded to the Michigan state court.
No. 24-783 · Decided April 22, 2026 · affirmed
Sotomayor · 9–0 · unanimous
Whether the 30-day deadline for removing a civil action from state to federal court under 28 U. S. C. § 1446(b)(1) is subject to equitable tolling.
Zorn v. Linton
The petitioner, Sergeant Jacob Zorn, prevailed on his claim for qualified immunity.
No. 25-297 · Decided March 23, 2026 · reversed
Per Curiam
Whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after using a rear wristlock to remove a passively resisting protester who had been given verbal warnings.
Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation
The petitioner Galette and the respondent Colt prevailed on the issue of sovereign immunity.
No. 24-1021 · Decided March 4, 2026 · affirmed; and both cases remanded
Sotomayor · 9–0 · unanimous
Does the New Jersey Transit Corporation qualify as an "arm of the State" of New Jersey?
Villarreal v. Texas
The respondent (Texas) prevailed on the issue of whether the trial court's qualified conferral order was constitutional.
No. 24-557 · Decided February 25, 2026 · affirmed
Jackson · 9–0 · unanimous
Does a trial court's order prohibiting a defendant and their counsel from discussing the defendant's ongoing testimony during an overnight recess violate the Sixth Amendment?
Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, Chapter 7 Trustee for Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC
The respondent prevailed because the Court affirmed the lower court's denial of the petitioner's motion to vacate the judgment.
No. 24-808 · Decided January 20, 2026 · affirmed
Alito · 9–0 · unanimous
Does the "reasonable time" requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) apply to motions seeking relief from a void judgment under Rule 60(b)(4)?
Barrett v. United States
The petitioner prevailed on the claim that he could not be convicted under both 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) for a single act.
No. 24-5774 · Decided January 14, 2026 · reversed in part and remanded
Jackson
Whether a single act that violates both 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) may yield two convictions—one under each provision—or only one.
Bowe v. United States
The petitioner prevailed on both the jurisdictional and merits issues, resulting in the vacation and remand of the Eleventh Circuit's judgment.
No. 24-5438 · Decided January 9, 2026 · Vacated and remanded
Sotomayor · 5–4
Does 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), which prohibits certiorari review of a court of appeals' authorization decision for a second or successive habeas application, apply to federal prisoners seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255?
Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC, et al.
The petitioner prevailed in that the judgment of the Louisiana Court of Appeal was reversed and the case was remanded.
No. 25-180 · Decided December 8, 2025 · reversed and remanded
Per Curiam
Whether a state statute immunizing healthcare providers from civil liability during public health emergencies can bar federal causes of action.
Kevin Mccarthy, Superintendent, Elmira Correctional Facility v. Pedro Hernandez
The petitioner prevailed in having the judgment of the Second Circuit reversed.
No. 25-748 · Decided June 22, 2026
Per Curiam
Whether a state trial court's refusal to instruct a jury on the "attenuation" of confessions violates clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1).
Pitchford v. Cain
The petitioner prevailed in that the Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.
No. 24-7351 · Decided May 28, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Kavanaugh · 5–4
Did the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably apply *Batson v. Kentucky* and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) by concluding that the petitioner waived his objection to the use of race-based peremptory strikes?
Pitchford v. Cain
The petitioner prevailed on the grounds that the state court's determination of waiver was unreasonable under AEDPA.
No. 24-7351 · Decided May 28, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Kavanaugh · 5–4
Did the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably apply *Batson v. Kentucky* and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) by concluding that the petitioner waived his objection to race-based peremptory strikes?
Daren K. Margolin, Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review v. National Association of Immigration Judges
The petitioner prevailed in that the judgment of the Fourth Circuit was reversed and the case was remanded.
No. 25-767 · Decided May 26, 2026
Per Curiam
Did the Fourth Circuit violate the principle of party presentation by deciding a case on a novel ground not raised by either party?
Margolin, Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review v. National Association of Immigration Judges
The petitioner prevailed in having the judgment of the Fourth Circuit reversed and the case remanded.
No. 25-767 · Decided May 26, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Per Curiam
Did the Fourth Circuit violate the party-presentation principle by deciding a case on a question broader than the one advanced by the parties?
M & K Employee Solutions, LLC, et al. v. Trustees of the Iam National Pension Fund
The respondent (Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund) prevailed on the issue of when actuarial assumptions may be selected for calculating withdrawal liability.
No. 23-1209 · Decided May 21, 2026 · affirmed
Jackson · 9–0 · unanimous
The case asks whether the "as of" language in 29 U.S.C. § 1391 establishes a deadline for the selection of actuarial assumptions used to calculate withdrawal liability.
M & K Employee Solutions, LLC, et al. v. Trustees of the Iam National Pension Fund
The respondent (Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund) prevailed on the issue of when actuarial assumptions may be selected for calculating withdrawal liability.
No. 23-1209 · Decided May 21, 2026 · affirmed
Jackson · 9–0 · unanimous
Whether the "as of" language in 29 U.S.C. § 1391 sets the measurement date as the deadline by which actuaries must select the assumptions that underlie the withdrawal-liability calculation.
Chevron USA Inc. et al. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, et al.
The petitioner (Chevron) prevailed on the issue of whether the state-court suit was removable to federal court.
No. 24-813 · Decided April 17, 2026 · vacated and remanded
Thomas · 8–0 · unanimous
Does a state-court environmental suit challenging Chevron’s wartime crude-oil production qualify for removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1)?
Chevron USA Inc. et al. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, et al.
The petitioner (Chevron) prevailed on the issue of whether the state-court suit was removable to federal court.
No. 24-813 · Decided April 17, 2026 · vacated and remanded
Thomas · 8–0 · unanimous
Does a state-court environmental suit challenging Chevron's crude-oil production during the Second World War satisfy the "relating to" requirement of the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)?
Rico v. United States
The petitioner prevailed on the issue of whether her term of supervised release was automatically extended by her abscondment.
No. 24-1056 · Decided March 25, 2026 · Reversed and remanded
Gorsuch · 8–1
Does the Sentencing Reform Act authorize a rule that automatically extends a defendant's term of supervised release when the defendant absconds?
Jacob P. Zorn v. Shela M. Linton
The petitioner, Jacob P. Zorn, prevailed on his request for qualified immunity.
No. 25-297 · Decided March 23, 2026
Per Curiam
Whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. §1983 after using a rear wristlock to remove a passively resisting protester.
Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal et al.
The respondent prevailed because the Court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's interlocutory appeal.
No. 24-758 · Decided February 25, 2026 · Affirmed and remanded
Kagan · 9–0 · unanimous
Does a district court's pretrial order denying a government contractor protection under *Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Constr.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. et al. v. Palmquist, Individually and As Next Friend of E. P., a Minor, et al.
The respondents prevailed because the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision to vacate the judgment in Hain's favor and remand the case to state court.
No. 24-724 · Decided February 24, 2026 · affirmed and remanded
Sotomayor · 9–0 · unanimous
Does a district court's erroneous dismissal of a nondiverse party before final judgment cure a jurisdictional defect that existed when a case was removed to federal court?
Klein, Superintendent, Department of Detention Facilities for Anne Arundel County, et al. v. Martin
The petitioner prevailed in reversing the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanding the case.
No. 25-51 · Decided January 26, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Per Curiam
Did the state appellate court's determination that an undisclosed forensic report was not material under *Brady v. Maryland* violate federal law?
Berk v. Choy et al.
The petitioner prevailed in that the Court reversed the lower court's dismissal of his lawsuit and remanded the case.
No. 24-440 · Decided January 20, 2026 · Reversed and remanded
Barrett · 9–0 · unanimous
Does Delaware law, which requires a medical professional's "affidavit of merit" to accompany a medical malpractice complaint, apply in federal court?
Clark v. Sweeney
The petitioner prevailed in having the judgment of the Fourth Circuit reversed and the case remanded.
No. 25-52 · Decided November 24, 2025 · reversed and remanded
Per Curiam
Did the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals violate the party-presentation principle by granting a new trial based on a legal claim that the respondent never asserted?
Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. California, et al.
The petitioner (the Government) prevailed on its application for a stay of the injunction.
No. 26A124 · Decided August 24, 2026
Per Curiam
Whether the Supreme Court should stay a District Court injunction that prevents the Government from implementing Executive Order No. 14399.
John Q. Hamm, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections v. Joseph Clifton Smith
The respondent prevailed because the Court dismissed the petition, leaving in place the lower court's ruling that he is intellectually disabled and cannot be executed.
No. 24-872 · Decided May 21, 2026
Per Curiam
Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores when assessing a claim that a defendant is intellectually disabled under *Atkins v. Virginia*.
District of Columbia v. R.W.
The petitioner (District of Columbia) prevailed on the issue of whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop R.W.
No. 25-248 · Decided April 20, 2026
Per Curiam
Whether the facts available to Officer Vanterpool before he ordered R.W. to put his hands up warranted the stop.
District of Columbia v. R. W.
The petitioner (District of Columbia) prevailed in reversing the judgment of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
No. 25-248 · Decided April 20, 2026 · reversed and remanded
Per Curiam
Did the police officer have reasonable suspicion to stop R. W. under the Fourth Amendment?