<?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 - 2018 Term</title>
<link>https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/</link>
<description>US Supreme Court Opinions of the Court - 2018 Term</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 22:58:31 EST</pubDate>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Mitchell v. Wisconsin (18-6210) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s judgment—affirming the drunk-driving convictions of petitioner Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious—is vacated, and the case is remanded. (Citation: 588 U.S. 840)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US2PP_final.pdf#page=502</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:58:23 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>588 U.S. 840</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Department of Commerce v. New York (18-966) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Secretary did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the District Court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision. (Citation: 588 U.S. 752)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US2PP_final.pdf#page=414</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:57:44 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>588 U.S. 752</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rucho v. Common Cause (18-422) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. (Citation: 588 U.S. 684)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US2PP_final.pdf#page=346</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:56:57 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>588 U.S. 684</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[United States v. Haymond (17-1672) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Tenth Circuit’s judgment—that 18 U. S. C. §3583(k)’s last two sentences are unconstitutional and unenforceable—is vacated, and the case is remanded. (Citation: 588 U.S. 634)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US2PP_final.pdf#page=296</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:56:25 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>588 U.S. 634</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Kisor v. Wilkie (18-15) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410—under which deference is given to an agency’s reasonable reading of its own genuinely ambiguous regulations—are not overruled. (Citation: 588 U.S. 558)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US2PP_final.pdf#page=220</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:55:55 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>588 U.S. 558</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (18-96) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Tennessee’s 2-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violates the Commerce Clause and is not saved by the Twenty-first Amendment. (Citation: 588 U.S. 504)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US2PP_final.pdf#page=166</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:55:21 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>588 U.S. 504</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[United States v. Davis (18-431) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague. (Citation: 588 U.S. 445)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US2PP_final.pdf#page=107</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:54:40 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>588 U.S. 445</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media (18-481) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4. (Citation: 588 U.S. 427)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US2PP_final.pdf#page=89</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:48:54 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>588 U.S. 427</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Iancu v. Brunetti (18-302) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment. (Citation: 588 U.S. 388)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US2PP_final.pdf#page=50</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:47:54 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>588 U.S. 388</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Dutra Group v. Batterton (18-266) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness. (Citation: 588 U.S. 358)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US2PP_final.pdf#page=20</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:47:18 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>588 U.S. 358</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Flowers v. Mississippi (17-9572) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The trial court at Flowers’ sixth murder trial committed clear error in concluding that the State’s peremptory strike of a particular black prospective juror was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. (Citation: 588 U.S. 284)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US1PP_final.pdf#page=292</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:46:00 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>588 U.S. 284</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust (18-457) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The presence of in-state beneficiaries alone does not empower a State to tax trust income that has not been distributed to the beneficiaries where the beneficiaries have no right to demand that income and are uncertain to receive it. (Citation: 588 U.S. 262)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US1PP_final.pdf#page=270</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:45:16 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>588 U.S. 262</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rehaif v. United States (17-9560) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[In a prosecution under 18 U. S. C. §922(g) and §924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. (Citation: 588 U.S. 225)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US1PP_final.pdf#page=233</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:44:42 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>588 U.S. 225</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Knick v. Township of Scott (17-647) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A government violates the Takings Clause when it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may bring a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 U. S. C. §1983 at that time; the state-litigation requirement of Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172, is overruled. (Citation: 588 U.S. 180)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US1PP_final.pdf#page=188</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:44:00 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>588 U.S. 180</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Gundy v. United States (17-6086) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Second Circuit’s judgment that 34 U. S. C. §20913(d)—which requires the Attorney General to apply the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s registration requirements as soon as feasible to offenders convicted before the statute’s enactment—is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority is affirmed. (Citation: 588 U.S. 128)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US1PP_final.pdf#page=136</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:43:13 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>588 U.S. 128</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[McDonough v. Smith (18-485) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The statute of limitations for McDonough’s 42 U. S. C. §1983 fabricated-evidence claim against his prosecutor began to run when the criminal proceedings against him terminated in his favor—that is, when he was acquitted at the end of his second trial. (Citation: 588 U.S. 109)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US1PP_web.pdf#page=117</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2025 16:11:50 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>588 U.S. 109</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[American Legion v. American Humanist Assn. (17-1717) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause. (Citation: 588 U.S. 29)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US1PP_final.pdf#page=37</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:42:26 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>588 U.S. 29</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc. (17-1705) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The extent to which a 2006 FCC Order interpreting the term “unsolicited advertisement” binds lower courts may depend on the resolution of two preliminary questions that the Fourth Circuit should address in the first instance: (1) whether the Order is the equivalent of a legislative rule, which has the force and effect of law, or an interpretative rule, which does not; and (2) whether petitioners had a “prior” and “adequate” opportunity to seek judicial review of the Order. (Citation: 588 U.S. 1)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/588US1PP_final.pdf#page=9</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:41:01 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>588 U.S. 1</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck (17-1702) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Petitioner, a private nonprofit corporation designated by New York City to operate the public access channels on the Manhattan cable system owned by Time Warner (now Charter), is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment. (Citation: 587 U.S. 802)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=824</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:28:38 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>587 U.S. 802</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren (16-1275) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Fourth Circuit’s judgment that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt Virginia’s prohibition on uranium mining in the Commonwealth is affirmed. (Citation: 587 U.S. 761)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=783</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:28:18 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>587 U.S. 761</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Gamble v. United States (17-646) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The dual sovereignty doctrine—under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns—is upheld. (Citation: 587 U.S. 678)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=700</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:27:55 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>587 U.S. 678</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (18-281) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The House of Delegates lacks standing to appeal the invalidation of Virginia’s redistricting plan. (Citation: 587 U.S. 658)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=680</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:27:26 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>587 U.S. 658</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Quarles v. United States (17-778) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Michigan’s third-degree home-invasion statute substantially corresponds to or is narrower than generic burglary for purposes of qualifying for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. (Citation: 587 U.S. 645)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=667</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:27:05 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>587 U.S. 645</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service (17-1594) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Federal Government is not a “person” capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. (Citation: 587 U.S. 618)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=640</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:26:43 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>587 U.S. 618</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton (18-389) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, where federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf. (Citation: 587 U.S. 601)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=623</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:26:21 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>587 U.S. 601</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Azar v. Allina Health Services (17-1484) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Because the Department of Health and Human Services neglected its statutory notice-and-comment obligations when it revealed a new policy that dramatically—and retroactively—reduced Medicare payments to hospitals serving low-income patients, its policy must be vacated. (Citation: 587 U.S. 566)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=588</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:25:56 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>587 U.S. 566</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Taggart v. Lorenzen (18-489) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A creditor may be held in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy court’s discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct. (Citation: 587 U.S. 554)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=576</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:25:28 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>587 U.S. 554</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Fort Bend County v. Davis (18-525) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The charge-filing precondition to suit set out in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not a jurisdictional requirement. (Citation: 587 U.S. 541)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=563</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:25:02 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>587 U.S. 541</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Mont v. United States (17-8995) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Pretrial detention later credited as time served for a new conviction tolls a supervised-release term under 18 U. S. C. §3624(e), even if the court must make the tolling calculation after learning whether the time will be credited. (Citation: 587 U.S. 514)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=536</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:24:40 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>587 U.S. 514</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (18-483) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Indiana’s law relating to the disposition of fetal remains by abortion providers passes rational basis review; certiorari is denied on the question whether the State may bar the knowing provision of sex-, race-, or disability-selective abortions by abortion providers, as only the Seventh Circuit has addressed this kind of law. (Citation: 587 U.S. 490)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=512</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:24:16 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>587 U.S. 490</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Smith v. Berryhill (17-1606) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A Social Security Administration Appeals Council dismissal on timeliness grounds of a request for review after a claimant has had an administrative law judge hearing on the merits qualifies as a “final decision . . . made after a hearing” for purposes of allowing judicial review under 42 U. S. C. §405(g). (Citation: 587 U.S. 471)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=493</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:23:51 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>587 U.S. 471</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson (17-1471) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Neither the general removal provision, 28 U. S. C. §1441(a), nor the removal provision in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, §1453(b), permit a third-party counterclaim defendant to remove a class-action claim from state to federal court. (Citation: 587 U.S. 435)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=457</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:23:29 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>587 U.S. 435</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Nieves v. Bartlett (17-1174) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Because police officers had probable cause to arrest Bartlett, his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim fails as a matter of law. (Citation: 587 U.S. 391)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=413</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:23:06 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>587 U.S. 391</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC (17-1657) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[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. (Citation: 587 U.S. 370)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=392</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:22:39 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>587 U.S. 370</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Herrera v. Wyoming (17-532) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[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. (Citation: 587 U.S. 329)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=351</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:22:08 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>587 U.S. 329</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht (17-290) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[“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. (Citation: 587 U.S. 299)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=321</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:21:41 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>587 U.S. 299</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Apple Inc. v. Pepper (17-204) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[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. (Citation: 587 U.S. 273)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=295</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:21:16 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>587 U.S. 273</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt (18-315) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[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. (Citation: 587 U.S. 262)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=284</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:20:49 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>587 U.S. 262</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt (17-1299) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S. 410, is overruled; States retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in courts of other States. (Citation: 587 U.S. 230)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=252</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:19:59 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>587 U.S. 230</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Thacker v. TVA (17-1201) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Title 16 U. S. C. §831c(b), which serves to waive the Tennessee Valley Authority’s sovereign immunity from suit, is not subject to a discretionary function exception of the kind in the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Citation: 587 U.S. 218)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=240</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:19:37 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>587 U.S. 218</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (17-988) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Under the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration. (Citation: 587 U.S. 176)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=198</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:19:11 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>587 U.S. 176</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian (18-459) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. (Citation: 587 U.S. 175)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=197</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:18:47 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>587 U.S. 175</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Bucklew v. Precythe (17-8151) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 35, and Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. ___, govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; petitioner’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol—that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition—fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test. (Citation: 587 U.S. 119)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=141</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:18:25 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>587 U.S. 119</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Biestek v. Berryhill (17-1184) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g). (Citation: 587 U.S. 97)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=119</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:17:05 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>587 U.S. 97</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Lorenzo v. SEC (17-1077) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of SEC Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator cannot be held liable under Rule 10b–5(b). (Citation: 587 U.S. 71)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=93</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:16:39 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>587 U.S. 71</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Sturgeon v. Frost (17-949) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Alaska’s Nation River is not public land; and like all non-public lands and navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, it is exempt under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act from the National Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority. (Citation: 587 U.S. 28)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=50</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:16:15 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>587 U.S. 28</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Republic of Sudan v. Harrison (16-1094) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[When civil process is served on a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1608(a)(3) requires a mailing to be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state. (Citation: 587 U.S. 1)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/587BV.pdf#page=23</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:15:46 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>587 U.S. 1</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Frank v. Gaos (17-961) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[This class action settlement case is remanded for the courts below to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U. S. ___. (Citation: 586 U.S. 485)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=684</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 12:02:42 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>586 U.S. 485</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP (17-1307) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A business engaged in no more than nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, except for the limited purpose of enforcing security interests under 15 U. S. C. §1692f(6). (Citation: 586 U.S. 466)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=665</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 12:02:13 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>586 U.S. 466</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries (17-1104) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger. (Citation: 586 U.S. 446)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=645</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 12:01:12 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>586 U.S. 446</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Nielsen v. Preap (16-1363) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Ninth Circuit’s judgments—that respondents, who are deportable for certain specified crimes, are not subject to 8 U. S. C. §1226(c)(2)’s mandatory-detention requirement because they were not arrested by immigration officials as soon as they were released from jail—are reversed, and the cases are remanded. (Citation: 586 U.S. 392)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=591</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 12:00:44 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>586 U.S. 392</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc. (16-1498) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Washington’s judgment—that the “right to travel” provision of the 1855 Treaty Between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians pre-empts the State’s fuel tax as applied to Cougar Den’s importation of fuel by public highway for sale within the reservation—is affirmed. (Citation: 586 U.S. 347)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=546</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 12:00:17 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>586 U.S. 347</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc. (17-1625) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A federal district court’s discretion to award “full costs” to a party in copyright litigation pursuant to 17 U. S. C. §505 is limited to the six categories specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 U. S. C. §§1821 and 1920. (Citation: 586 U.S. 334)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=533</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:59:48 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>586 U.S. 334</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[BNSF R. Co. v. Loos (17-1042) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A railroad’s payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. (Citation: 586 U.S. 310)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=509</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:59:25 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>586 U.S. 310</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com (17-571) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright. (Citation: 586 U.S. 296)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=495</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:58:54 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>586 U.S. 296</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Madison v. Alabama (17-7505) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he cannot remember committing his crime but it may prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder rather than psychotic delusions. (Citation: 586 U.S. 265)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=464</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:58:26 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>586 U.S. 265</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Garza v. Idaho (17-1026) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U. S. 470, applies regardless of whether a defendant has signed an appeal waiver. (Citation: 586 U.S. 232)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=431</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:57:56 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>586 U.S. 232</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Jam v. International Finance Corp. (17-1011) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. (Citation: 586 U.S. 199)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=398</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:57:25 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>586 U.S. 199</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert (17-1094) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling. (Citation: 586 U.S. 188)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=387</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:56:59 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>586 U.S. 188</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Yovino v. Rizo (18-272) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Ninth Circuit erred when it counted as a member of the majority a judge who died before the court’s opinion in this case was filed. (Citation: 586 U.S. 181)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=380</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:56:33 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>586 U.S. 181</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Dawson v. Steager (17-419) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[By taxing the federal pension benefits of U. S. Marshals Service retiree Dawson, while exempting from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers, West Virginia unlawfully discriminates against Mr. Dawson as 4 U. S. C. §111 forbids. (Citation: 586 U.S. 171)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=370</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:56:07 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>586 U.S. 171</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Timbs v. Indiana (17-1091) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Citation: 586 U.S. 146)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=345</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:55:45 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>586 U.S. 146</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Moore v. Texas (18-443) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with Moore v. Texas, 581 U. S. ___. (Citation: 586 U.S. 133)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=332</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:55:02 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>586 U.S. 133</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Helsinn Healthcare S. A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (17-1229) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1). (Citation: 586 U.S. 123)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=322</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:54:34 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>586 U.S. 123</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira (17-340) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s §1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime falls within that exception. (Citation: 586 U.S. 105)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=304</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:54:06 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>586 U.S. 105</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Stokeling v. United States (17-5554) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance. (Citation: 586 U.S. 73)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=272</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:53:03 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>586 U.S. 73</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (17-1272) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and this Court’s precedent. (Citation: 586 U.S. 63)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=262</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:52:03 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>586 U.S. 63</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Culbertson v. Berryhill (17-773) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25% of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation. (Citation: 586 U.S. 53)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=252</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:51:27 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>586 U.S. 53</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Shoop v. Hill (18-56) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Because Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of this Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, see 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1), the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas, 581 U. S. ___—which was handed down much later—was plainly improper. (Citation: 586 U.S. 45)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=244</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:50:06 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>586 U.S. 45</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Escondido v. Emmons (17-1660) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Ninth Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by this Court’s precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity. (Citation: 586 U.S. 38)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=237</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:49:34 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>586 U.S. 38</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[United States v. Stitt (17-765) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The term “burglary” in the Armed Career Criminal Act includes burglary of a structure or vehicle that has been adapted or is customarily used for overnight accommodation. (Citation: 586 U.S. 27)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=226</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:48:40 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>586 U.S. 27</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. (17-71) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[An area is eligible for designation as “critical habitat” under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 only if it is habitat for the listed species; and the Secretary of the Interior’s decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat under 16 U. S. C. §1533(b)(2) is subject to judicial review. (Citation: 586 U.S. 9)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=208</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:48:10 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>586 U.S. 9</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. Guido (17-587) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[State and local governments are covered employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 regardless of the number of employees they have. (Citation: 586 U.S. 1)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/586BV.pdf#page=200</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 11:46:33 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>586 U.S. 1</category>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>