Supreme Court of the United States

Today at the Court - Thursday, Jun 26, 2025


  • The Court will convene for a public non-argument session in the Courtroom at 10 a.m.
  • The Court may announce opinions, which are posted on the homepage after announcement from the Bench. 
  • Seating for the non-argument session will be provided to the public, members of the Supreme Court Bar, and press. The Supreme Court Building will otherwise be closed.
  • The Supreme Court Building will reopen to the public following the conclusion of the Court session and close at 3 p.m.
  • The Justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<<June 2025><<
June 2025
SMTWTFS
       
1234
 
67
891011
 
1314
151617
 
 
2021
22232425
 
2728
2930     
Calendar Info/Key

 



Recent Decisions


June 26, 2025
         
Hewitt v. United States (23-1002)
Because a sentence “has . . . been imposed” for purposes of §403(b) of the First Step Act only if the sentence is extant (i.e., has not been vacated), the Act’s more lenient penalties apply to defendants whose previous 18 U. S. C. §924(c) sentences have been vacated and who need to be resentenced following the Act’s enactment; the judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded.

         
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (23-1275)
Medicaid’s any-qualified-provider provision—42 U. S. C. §1396a(a)(23)(A)—does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights on Medicaid beneficiaries enforceable under 42 U. S. C. §1983.

         
Gutierrez v. Saenz (23-7809)
Petitioner Ruben Gutierrez has standing to bring his 42 U. S. C. §1983 claim challenging Texas’s postconviction DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause.

         
Riley v. Bondi (23-1270)
Order from the Board of Immigration Appeals denying deferral of removal in “withholding only” proceeding is not a “final order of removal” under 8 U. S. C. §1252(b)(1); the 30-day filing deadline to challenge a final order of removal under §1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.



More Opinions...

Did You Know...

Color Me Gerrymandered


The inclusion of maps, photographs, or other supplemental material in Supreme Court opinions is rare. On June 22, 1983, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Karcher  v. Daggett, in which it found that the population discrepancies for New Jersey’s recently redrawn congressional districts went beyond the allowable bounds. In a concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens also found the “bizarre configuration” of the district boundaries to be unconstitutional, particularly “the Swan” (district five) and “the Fishhook” (district seven). To illustrate his point, he wanted to include a color map, but Chief Justice Warren E. Burger objected because he felt the expense was excessive. Stevens persuaded him by noting that he had saved the Court more than the amount at issue by employing only two law clerks every year, while all of Stevens’s colleagues employed three or more. The map was included.

 

Justice John Paul Stevens’s trifold map in Karcher v. Daggett (462 U.S. 725, 1983) may well be the first color map to be published in an opinion.
Justice John Paul Stevens’s trifold map in Karcher  v. Daggett (462 U.S. 725, 1983) may well be the first color map to be published in an opinion.
Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543