Supreme Court of the United States
 

Today at the Court - Wednesday, May 22, 2019


  • The Supreme Court Building is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
  • The Court will next convene for a public session in the Courtroom at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 28.
  • Courtroom Lectures available within the next 30 days.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<<May 2019><<
May 2019
SMTWTFS
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26
 
28293031 
       
Calendar Info/Key

 



Recent Decisions


May 20, 2019
         
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC (17-1657)
A bankruptcy debtor’s rejection of an executory contract under 11 U. S. C. §365 has the same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy; such an act thus cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.

         
Herrera v. Wyoming (17-532)
Wyoming’s statehood did not abrogate the Crow Tribe’s 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States”; the lands of the Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically “occupied” when the forest was created.

         
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht (17-290)
“Clear evidence” that the FDA would not have approved a change to a drug’s label—thus pre-empting a state-law failure-to-warn claim—is evidence showing that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the warning required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning; the question of agency disapproval is primarily one of law for a judge to decide.



May 13, 2019
         
Apple, Inc. v. Pepper (17-204)
Respondents, who purchased apps for their iPhones though Apple’s App Store, were direct purchasers from Apple under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720, and may sue Apple for allegedly monopolizing the retail market for the sale of iPhone apps.

         
Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt (18-315)
The limitations period in 31 U. S. C. §3731(b)(2)—which provides that a False Claims Act action must be brought within 3 years after the “the official of the United States charged with responsibility to act in the circumstances” knew or should have known the relevant facts, but not more than 10 years after the violation—applies in a qui tam suit in which the Federal Government has declined to intervene; the relator in a nonintervened suit is not “the official of the United States” whose knowledge triggers §3731(b)(2)’s limitations period.

         
Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt (17-1299)
Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S. 410, is overruled; States retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in courts of other States.



More Opinions...

Did You Know...

Marbury Card Table


William Marbury, the well-known litigant from the case of Marbury  v. Madison (1803), previously owned this gate-leg card table. It is attributed to the Baltimore workshop of John Bankson and Richard Lawson and embodies the simple, classic lines of the early Federal style. The table is currently on display in the John Marshall Dining Room of the Supreme Court Building.

 

The table relies on intricate inlays for its decoration. Stylized floral motifs are featured within ovals on either side of the drawer, and bell flowers, associated with Baltimore furniture of the period, adorn each tapered leg.
The table relies on intricate inlays for its decoration. Stylized floral motifs are featured within ovals on either side of the drawer, and bell flowers, associated with Baltimore furniture of the period, adorn each tapered leg.
Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States


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