<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='slipopinion.xsl' ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='slipopinion.css' ?>
<rss version='2.0'>
<channel>
<title>US Supreme Court Opinions of the Court - 2017 Term</title>
<link>https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/</link>
<description>US Supreme Court Opinions of the Court - 2017 Term</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 22:59:37 EST</pubDate>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[North Carolina v. Covington (17-1364) - (per curiam) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R076, No. 17-1364, 6/28/18.  The District Court’s order is affirmed insofar as it provided a court-drawn remedy for Senate Districts 21 and 28 and House Districts 21 and 57 and reversed as to the court’s actions concerning the legislature’s redrawing of House districts in Wake and Mecklenburg Counties. (Citation: 585 U.S. 969)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US2PP_final.pdf#page=474</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:38:21 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>585 U.S. 969</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Sexton v. Beaudreaux (17-1106) - (per curiam) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R075, No. 17-1106, 6/28/18.  The Ninth Circuit erred in reversing a denial of federal habeas relief on the ground that the state court had unreasonably rejected respondent’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. (Citation: 585 U.S. 961)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US2PP_final.pdf#page=466</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:37:32 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>585 U.S. 961</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Sause v. Bauer (17-742) - (per curiam) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R074, No. 17-742, 6/28/18.  The Tenth Circuit erred in holding that police officers were entitled to qualified immunity without considering the ground on which the officers were present in petitioner’s home and the nature of any legitimate law enforcement interests that might have justified their order that petitioner stop praying at the specific time in question. (Citation: 585 U.S. 957)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US2PP_final.pdf#page=462</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:36:41 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>585 U.S. 957</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees (16-1466) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R073, No. 16-1466, 6/27/18.  The State of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209, which concluded otherwise, is overruled. (Citation: 585 U.S. 878)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US2PP_final.pdf#page=383</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:35:44 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>585 U.S. 878</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Florida v. Georgia (142, Orig.) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R072, No. 142, Orig., 6/27/18.  Florida has made a legally sufficient showing as to the possibility of fashioning an effective remedial decree equitably apportioning the water from an interstate river basin. (Citation: 585 U.S.803)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US2PP_final.pdf#page=308</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:34:58 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>585 U.S.803</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (16-1140) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R071, No. 16-1140, 6/26/18.  Petitioners are likely to succeed on their claim that the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act) violates the First Amendment. (Citation: 585 U.S. 755)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US2PP_final.pdf#page=260</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:34:04 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>585 U.S. 755</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Trump v. Hawaii (17-965) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R070, No.  17-965, 6/26/18.  The President has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under 8 U. S. C. §1182(f) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States; respondents have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that Presidential Proclamation No. 9645 violates the Establishment Clause. (Citation: 585 U.S. 667)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US2PP_final.pdf#page=172</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:33:07 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>585 U.S. 667</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Abbott v. Perez (17-586) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R069, No. 17-586, 6/25/18.  The District Court disregarded the presumption of legislative good faith and improperly reversed the burden of proof when it required the State to show a lack of discriminatory intent in adopting new districting plans; one of the challenged State House districts is an impermissible racial gerrymander. (Citation: 585 U.S. 579)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US2PP_final.pdf#page=84</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:32:06 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>585 U.S. 579</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Ohio v. American Express Co. (16-1454) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R068, No.  16-1454, 6/25/18.  American Express’ antisteering provisions in its merchant contracts—which prohibit merchants from avoiding fees by discouraging customers’ American Express card use at the point of sale—do not violate federal antitrust law. (Citation: 585 U.S. 529)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US2PP_final.pdf#page=34</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:29:23 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>585 U.S. 529</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Cox v. United States (16-1017) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R067, No. 16-1017, 6/22/18.  Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. (Citation: 585 U.S. 528 )  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=544</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:42:03 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>585 U.S. 528 </category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Dalmazzi v. United States (16-961) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R066, No. 16-961, 6/22/18.  Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. (Citation: 585 U.S. 527)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=543</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:06:54 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>585 U.S. 527</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Currier v. Virginia (16-1348) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R065, No. 16-1348, 6/22/18.  Because Currier consented to a severance of the multiple charges against him, his second trial and resulting conviction, following an acquittal at his first trial, did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. (Citation: 585 U.S. 493)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=509</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:40:33 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>585 U.S. 493</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Ortiz v. United States (16-1423) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R064, No. 16-1423, 6/22/18.  Military Judge Mitchell’s simultaneous service on an Air Force appeals court and the Court of Military Commission Review violated neither 10 U. S. C. §973(b)(2)(A) nor the Appointments Clause. (Citation: 585 U.S. 427)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=443</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:39:55 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>585 U.S. 427</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. (16-1011) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R063, No. 16-1011; 6/22/18.  The focus of the Patent Act’s general damages provision, 35 U. S. C. §284, in a case involving infringement under §271(f)(2) is on the act of exporting components from the United States; therefore, WesternGeco’s award for lost profits was a permissible domestic application of §284, not an extraterritorial one. (Citation: 585 U.S. 407)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=423</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:39:06 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>585 U.S. 407</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Carpenter v. United States (16-402) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R062; No. 16-402, 6/22/18.  The Government’s acquisition of Carpenter’s cell-site records from his wireless carriers was a Fourth Amendment search; and the Government did not obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring those records. (Citation: 585 U.S. 296)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=312</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:38:19 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>585 U.S. 296</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States (17-530) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R061, No. 17-530, 6/21/18.  Employee stock options are not taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act of 1937. (Citation: 585 U.S. 274)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=290</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:37:21 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>585 U.S. 274</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Lucia v. SEC (17-130) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R060, No. 17-130, 6/21/18.  Securities and Exchange Commission administrative law judges are “Officers of the United States,” subject to the Appointments Clause. (Citation: 585 U.S. 237)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=253</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:36:29 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>585 U.S. 237</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Pereira v. Sessions (17-459) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R059, No. 17-459; 6/21/18.  A putative notice sent to a nonpermanent resident to appear at a removal proceeding that fails to designate a specific time or place for that proceeding does not end the continuous residence period calculation necessary for possible cancellation of the individual’s removal. (Citation: 585 U.S. 198)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=214</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:35:49 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>585 U.S. 198</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (17-494) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R058; No. 17-494, 6/21/18.  Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U. S. 753—which held that a State cannot require an out-of-state seller with no physical presence in the State to collect and remit sales taxes on goods the seller ships to consumers in the State—are overruled. (Citation: 585 U.S. 162)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=178</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:34:28 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Anthony M. Kennedy</category>
<category>585 U.S. 162</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Benisek v. Lamone (17-333) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R057, 17-333, 6/18/18.  Because the balance of equities and the public interest tilt against the preliminary injunction motion of plaintiffs claiming that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. (Citation: 585 U.S. 155)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=171</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:33:30 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>585 U.S. 155</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rosales-Mireles v. United States (16-9493) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R056, No.16-9493, 6/18/18.  A miscalculation of a Federal Guidelines sentencing range that has been determined to be plain and to affect a defendant’s substantial rights calls for a court of appeals to exercise its discretion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) to vacate the defendant’s sentence in the ordinary case. (Citation: 585 U.S. 129)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=145</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:32:17 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>585 U.S. 129</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Chavez-Meza v. United States (17-5639) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R055, No. 17-5639, 6/18/18.  Because the record in this case demonstrates that the judge had a reasoned basis for his decision, the judge’s explanation for reducing, under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(2), petitioner’s sentence to the middle rather than the bottom of the amended Federal Guidelines range was adequate. (Citation: 585 U.S. 109)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=125</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:31:10 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>585 U.S. 109</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Lozman v. Riviera Beach (17-21) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R054, No. 17-21; 6/18/18.  The existence of probable cause for Lozman’s arrest for disrupting a city council meeting does not bar his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under the circumstances of this case. (Citation: 585 U.S. 87)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=103</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:30:00 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Anthony M. Kennedy</category>
<category>585 U.S. 87</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Gill v. Whitford (16-1161) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R053; No. 16-1161, 6/18/18.  Plaintiffs—Wisconsin Democratic voters who rested their claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering on statewide injury—have failed to demonstrate Article III standing. (Citation: 585 U.S. 48)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=64</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:28:52 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>585 U.S. 48</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. (16-1220) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R052, No. 16-1220; 6/14/18.  A federal court determining foreign law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 should accord respectful consideration to a foreign government’s submission, but the court is not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government’s statements. (Citation: 585 U.S. 33)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=49</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:28:03 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>585 U.S. 33</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (16-1435) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R051; No. 16-1435, 6/14/18.  Minnesota’s ban on political apparel at polling places violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. (Citation: 585 U.S. 1)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/585US1PP_final.pdf#page=17</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:27:08 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>585 U.S. 1</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Washington v. United States (17-269) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R050; No. 17-269, 6/11/18.  Judgment affirmed by an equally divided Court. (Citation: 584 U.S. 837)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=534</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:08:55 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>584 U.S. 837</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Sveen v. Melin (16-1432) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R049; No. 16-1432, 6/11/18.  The retroactive application of Minnesota’s revocation-on-divorce statute—which automatically nullifies an ex-spouse’s beneficiary designation on a life-insurance policy or other will substitute—does not violate the Contracts Clause. (Citation: 584 U.S. 811)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=508</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:06:55 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>584 U.S. 811</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute (16-980) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R048, No. 16-980; 6/11/18.  The process that Ohio uses to remove voters on change-of-residence grounds does not violate the National Voter Registration Act. (Citation: 584 U.S. 756)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=453</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:06:06 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>584 U.S. 756</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh (17-432) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R047; No. 17-432, 6/11/18.  Upon denial of class certification, a putative class member may not, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing an individual action, commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations. (Citation: 584 U.S. 732)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=429</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:05:00 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>584 U.S. 732</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Azar v. Garza (17-654) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The D. C. Circuit’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the individual claim for injunctive relief as moot. (Citation: 584 U.S. 726)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=423</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:04:02 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>584 U.S. 726</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling (16-1215) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Single-asset statements qualify as “statement[s] respecting the debtor’s . . . financial condition” for purposes of Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(2)’s exceptions to discharge; where, as here, a single-asset statement is not in writing, the associated debt may be discharged. (Citation: 584 U.S. 709)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=406</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:03:14 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>584 U.S. 709</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Koons v. United States (17-5716) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Petitioners do not qualify for sentence reductions under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(2) because their sentences were not “based on” their lowered Federal Sentencing Guidelines ranges but, instead, were “based on” their mandatory minimums and their substantial assistance to the Government. (Citation: 584 U.S. 700)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=397</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:55:31 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>584 U.S. 700</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Hughes v. United States (17-155) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is “based on” the defendant’s Federal Sentencing Guidelines range so long as that range was part of the framework the district court relied on in imposing the sentence or accepting the agreement; thus, Hughes may seek a sentencing reduction under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(2). (Citation: 584 U.S. 675)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=372</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:54:28 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Anthony M. Kennedy</category>
<category>584 U.S. 675</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n (16-111) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s actions in assessing a cakeshop owner’s reasons for declining to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration violated the Free Exercise Clause. (Citation: 584 U.S. 617)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=314</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:53:13 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Anthony M. Kennedy</category>
<category>584 U.S. 617</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[City of Hays v. Vogt (16-1495) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R041; No. 16-1495, 5/29/18.  Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. (Citation: 584 U.S. 615)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=312</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:52:03 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>584 U.S. 615</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Collins v. Virginia (16-1027) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R040; No. 16-1027, 5/29/18.  The Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception does not permit the warrantless entry of a home or its curtilage in order to search a vehicle therein. (Citation: 584 U.S. 586)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=283</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:50:49 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>584 U.S. 586</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Lagos v. United States (16-1519) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R039; No. 16-1519, 5/29/18.  In a provision of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 that requires certain convicted defendants to “reimburse the victim for . . . expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attendance at proceedings related to the offense,” 18 U. S. C. §3663A(b)(4), the words “investigation” and “proceedings” are limited to government investigations and criminal proceedings and do not include private investigations and civil or bankruptcy proceedings. (Citation: 584 U.S. 577)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=274</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:49:15 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>584 U.S. 577</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren (17-387) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R038; No. 17-387, 5/21/18.  County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 502 U. S. 251, addressed only a question of statutory interpretation of the Indian General Allotment Act of 1887, not the question whether Indian tribes have sovereign immunity in in rem lawsuits. (Citation: 584 U.S. 554)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=251</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:57:25 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>584 U.S. 554</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (16-285) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R037; No. 16-285, 5/21/18.  Congress has instructed in the Federal Arbitration Act that arbitration agreements providing for individualized proceedings must be enforced, and neither the Arbitration Act’s saving clause nor the National Labor Relations Act suggests otherwise. (Citation: 584 U.S. 497)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=194</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:55:47 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>584 U.S. 497</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (16-476) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R036; 16-476; 5/14/18.  Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) provisions that prohibit state authorization and licensing of sports gambling schemes, see 28 U. S. C. §3702(1), violate the Constitution’s anticommandeering rule; no other PASPA provisions are severable from the provisions at issue. (Citation: 584 U.S. 453)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=150</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:54:52 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>584 U.S. 453</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Dahda v. United States (17-43) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R035; 17-43; 5/14/18.  Wiretap orders authorized by a judge for the District of Kansas in the Government’s investigation of a suspected Kansas drug distribution ring were not facially insufficient, since they were not lacking any information that the wiretap statute required them to include and since the challenged language authorizing interception outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction was surplus. (Citation: 584 U.S. 440)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=137</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:53:51 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>584 U.S. 440</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[McCoy v. Louisiana (16-8255) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R034; No. 16-8255, 5/14/18.  The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to choose the objective of his defense and to insist that his counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experienced-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty. (Citation: 584 U.S. 414)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=111</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:52:33 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>584 U.S. 414</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Byrd v. United States (16-1371) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R033; No. 16-1371, 5/14/18.  The mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment.  (Citation: 584 U.S. 395)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=92</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:51:18 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Anthony M. Kennedy</category>
<category>584 U.S. 395</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[United States v. Sanchez-Gomez (17-312) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R032; No. 17-312, 5/14/18.  Respondents’ appeals challenging the use of full restraints during nonjury pretrial proceedings became moot when their underlying criminal cases came to an end before the Ninth Circuit could render its decision. (Citation: 584 U.S. 381)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US2PP_final.pdf#page=78</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:50:11 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>584 U.S. 381</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu (16-969) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R031; No. 16-969, 4/24/18.  When the United States Patent and Trademark Office institutes an inter partes review to reconsider an already-issued patent claim, see 35 U. S. C. §§311–319, it must decide the patentability of all of the claims the petitioner has challenged. (Citation: 584 U.S. 357)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US1PP_final.pdf#page=399</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:28:57 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>584 U.S. 357</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC (16-712) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R030; No. 16-712, 4/24/18.  Inter partes review—which authorizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider and cancel an already-issued patent claim, see 35 U. S. C. §§311–319—does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. (Citation: 584 U.S. 325)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US1PP_final.pdf#page=367</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:28:19 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>584 U.S. 325</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC (16-499) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R029; No. 16-499, 4/24/18.  The Second Circuit’s judgment—that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute—is affirmed. (Citation: 584 U.S. 241)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US1PP_final.pdf#page=283</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:27:06 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Anthony M. Kennedy</category>
<category>584 U.S. 241</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[United States v. Microsoft Corp. (17-2) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Second Circuit’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. (Citation: 584 U.S. 236)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US1PP_final.pdf#page=278</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:26:09 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>584 U.S. 236</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Sessions v. Dimaya (15-1498) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Ninth Circuit’s judgment—that 18 U. S. C. §16(b), which defines violent felony for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s removal provisions, is unconstitutionally vague—is affirmed. (Citation: 584 U.S. 148)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US1PP_final.pdf#page=190</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:25:17 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>584 U.S. 148</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Wilson v. Sellers (16-6855) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A federal habeas court reviewing an unexplained state-court decision on the merits should “look through” that decision to the last related state-court decision that provides a relevant rationale and presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning; the State may rebut the presumption by showing that the unexplained decision most likely relied on different grounds than the reasoned decision below. (Citation: 584 U.S. 122)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US1PP_final.pdf#page=164</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:24:24 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>584 U.S. 122</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Kisela v. Hughes (17-467) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R025; No. 17-467, 4/2/18.  Petitioner police officer is entitled to qualified immunity here, where his actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. (Citation: 584 U.S. 100)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US1PP_final.pdf#page=142</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:23:23 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>584 U.S. 100</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro (16-1362) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R024; No. 16-1362, 4/2/18.  Because service advisors at car dealerships are “salesm[e]n . . . primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles,” 29 U. S. C. §213(b)(10)(A), they are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime-pay requirement. (Citation: 584 U.S. 79)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US1PP_final.pdf#page=121</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:22:21 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>584 U.S. 79</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Hall v. Hall (16-1150) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R023; No. 16-1150, 3/27/18.  When one of several cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is finally decided, that decision confers upon the losing party the immediate right to appeal, regardless of whether any of the other consolidated cases remain pending. (Citation: 584 U.S. 59)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US1PP_final.pdf#page=101</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:21:15 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>584 U.S. 59</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Ayestas v. Davis (16-6795) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R022; No 16-6795; 3/21/18.  The District Court’s denial of petitioner’s request for funding for “reasonably necessary” services of experts, investigators, and the like, 18 U. S. C. §3599(f), to develop his claim that both his trial and state habeas counsel were ineffective was a judicial decision subject to appellate review under the standard jurisdictional provisions; the Fifth Circuit did not apply the correct legal standard in affirming the denial of that request. (Citation: 584 U.S. 28)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US1PP_final.pdf#page=70</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:17:30 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>584 U.S. 28</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Marinello v. United States (16-1144) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R021; No. 16-1144, 3/21/18.  To convict a defendant under 26 U. S. C. §7212(a)—which forbids “corruptly or by force or threats of force . . . obstruct[ing] or imped[ing], or endeavor[ing] to obstruct or impede, the due administration of [the Internal Revenue Code]”—the Government must prove the defendant was aware of a pending tax-related proceeding, such as a particular investigation or audit, or could reasonably foresee that such a proceeding would commence. (Citation: 584 U.S. 1)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/584US1PP_final.pdf#page=43</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:22:04 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>584 U.S. 1</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (15-1439) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 did not strip state courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions alleging only 1933 Securities Act violations; nor did it authorize removing such suits from state to federal court. (Citation: 583 U.S. 416)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=466</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:16:03 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>583 U.S. 416</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Texas v. New Mexico (141, Orig.) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R019; No. 141, Orig., 3/5/18.  The United States may pursue its complaint in intervention asserting a claim that New Mexico has violated the Rio Grande Compact. (Citation: 583 U.S. 407)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=457</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:15:19 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>583 U.S. 407</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[U. S. Bank N. A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC (15-1509) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R018; No. 15-1509, 3/5/18.  The Ninth Circuit was right to review the Bankruptcy Court’s determination of non-statutory insider status for clear error (rather than de novo). (Citation: 583 U.S. 387)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=437</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:14:45 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>583 U.S. 387</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. (16-784) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[When determining whether Bankruptcy Code §546(e)’s securities safe harbor saves a transfer that the trustee seeks to invalidate under the trustee’s “avoiding powers,” the only relevant transfer is the transfer that the trustee seeks to avoid, not the component parts of that transfer. (Citation: 583 U.S. 366)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=416</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:13:52 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>583 U.S. 366</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Jennings v. Rodriguez (15-1204) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Title 8 U. S. C. §§1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) do not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention. (Citation: 583 U.S. 281)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=331</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:13:14 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>583 U.S. 281</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Patchak v Zinke (16-498) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The D. C. Circuit’s judgment affirming the dismissal of Patchak’s suit—which challenged the Secretary of the Interior’s Indian Reorganization Act authority to take land into trust—for lack of jurisdiction in light of Congress’ enactment of the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act is affirmed. (Citation: 583 U.S. 244)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=294</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:11:58 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>583 U.S. 244</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Murphy v. Smith (16-1067) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R014; No. 16-1067, 2/21/18.  In cases governed by 42 U. S. C. §1997e(d), which provides that “a portion of [a prevailing prisoner’s civil rights] judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant,” district courts must apply as much of the judgment as necessary, up to 25%, to satisfy the award. (Citation: 583 U.S. 220)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=270</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:11:25 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>583 U.S. 220</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran (16-534) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R013; No. 16-534, 2/21/18.  Title 28 U. S. C. §1610(g) does not provide a freestanding basis for parties holding a judgment against a state sponsor of terrorism for an act of terrorism, see §1605A, to attach and execute against the foreign state’s property; rather, for §1610(g) to apply, the property’s immunity must be rescinded under a separate provision within §1610. (Citation: 583 U.S. 202)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=252</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:10:15 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>583 U.S. 202</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Class v. United States (16-424) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R012; No. 16-424, 2/21/18.  A guilty plea, by itself, does not bar a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of his statute of conviction on direct appeal. (Citation: 583 U.S. 174)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=224</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:09:24 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>583 U.S. 174</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers (16-1276) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R011; No. 16-1276, 2/21/18.  The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s anti-retaliation provision does not extend to an individual, like Somers, who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission. (Citation: 583 U.S. 149)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=199</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:08:23 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>583 U.S. 149</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Montana v Wyoming (137, Orig) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R10; No. 137, Orig., 2/20/18.  Judgment is awarded against Wyoming and in favor of Montana for violations of the Yellowstone River Compact, and decree is entered. (Citation: 583 U.S. 142)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=192</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:07:01 EST</pubDate>
<category>Decree in Original Case</category>
<category>583 U.S. 142</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CNH Industrial N. V. v. Reese (17-515) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R09; No. 17-515, 2/20/18.  In interpreting an unambiguous collective-bargaining agreement, the Sixth Circuit should have employed ordinary principles of contract law under M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 574 U. S. ___, instead of relying on inferences to presume that the agreement vested retiree benefits for life. (Citation: 583 U.S. 133)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US2PP_final.pdf#page=183</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:06:25 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>583 U.S. 133</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense (16-299) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R08; No. 16-299, 1/22/18.  Challenges to an Environmental Protection Agency regulation defining the Clean Water Act term “waters of the United States” must be filed in federal district courts. (Citation: 583 U.S. 109)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US1PP_final.pdf#page=259</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:27:02 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>583 U.S. 109</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Artis v. District of Columbia (16-460) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R07; No. 16-460, 1/22/18.  Title 28 U. S. C. §1367(d)’s instruction to “toll” a state limitations period while a supplemental state-law claim is pending in federal court means to hold it in abeyance, i.e., to stop the clock. (Citation: 583 U.S. 71)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US1PP_final.pdf#page=221</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:26:18 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>583 U.S. 71</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[District of Columbia v. Wesby (15-1485) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R06; No. 15-1485; 1/22/18.  D. C. police officers had probable cause to arrest partygoers for holding a raucous, late-night party in a house they did not have permission to enter; and, in any event, the officers were entitled qualified immunity. (Citation: 583 U.S. 48)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US1PP_final.pdf#page=198</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:25:35 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>583 U.S. 48</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Tharpe v. Sellers (17-6075) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R05; No. 17-6075; 1/8/18.  The Eleventh Circuit erred in basing its refusal to issue a certificate of appealability in petitioner’s habeas corpus case on the ground that jurists of reason could not dispute that the District Court’s ruling on petitioner’s procedurally defaulted juror bias claim was correct. (Citation: 583 U.S. 33)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US1PP_final.pdf#page=183</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:24:49 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>583 U.S. 33</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[In Re United States (17-801) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R04; No. 17-801; 12/20/17.  The Ninth Circuit’s judgment upholding a District Court order requiring the Government to complete the administrative record filed in a proceeding brought to enjoin recession of the Deferred Action in Childhood Arrivals program is vacated. (Citation: 583 U.S. 29)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US1PP_final.pdf#page=179</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:24:01 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>583 U.S. 29</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago (16-658) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R03; No. 16-658; 11/8/17.  The Seventh Circuit erred in treating as jurisdictional Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C)’s 30-day limitation on extensions of time to file a notice of appeal. (Citation: 583 U.S. 17)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US1PP_final.pdf#page=167</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:23:12 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>583 U.S. 17</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Dunn v. Madison (17-193) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R02; No. 17-193; 11/6/17.  The Eleventh Circuit erred in granting habeas relief where the state court’s determination—that respondent was competent to be executed because he recognized that he would be put to death as punishment for the murder he was found to have committed—was not an unreasonable application of this Court’s case law nor an unreasonable assessment of the evidence before it. (Citation: 583 U.S. 10)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US1PP_final.pdf#page=160</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:22:35 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>583 U.S. 10</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Kernan v. Cuero (16-1468) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[R01; No. 16-1468; 11/6/17.  Federal law as interpreted by this Court did not clearly establish that the state court in this case was required to impose the lower sentence that respondent would have received under a criminal plea agreement had the State not been permitted to amend the complaint.   (Citation: 583 U.S. 1)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/583US1PP_final.pdf#page=151</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 17:22:04 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>583 U.S. 1</category>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>