<?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 - 2019 Term</title>
<link>https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/</link>
<description>US Supreme Court Opinions of the Court - 2019 Term</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 22:59:02 EST</pubDate>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Barr v. Lee (20A8) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The District Court’s order preliminarily enjoining the executions of four federal prisoners is vacated. (Citation: 591 U.S. 979)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=538</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:44:44 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>591 U.S. 979</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Sharp v. Murphy (17-1107) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The judgment of the Tenth Circuit is affirmed for the reasons stated in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U. S. ___. (Citation: 591 U.S. 977)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=536</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:45:27 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>591 U.S. 977</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[McGirt v. Oklahoma (18-9526) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Land in Northeastern Oklahoma reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains “Indian country” for purposes of the Major Crimes Act, which places certain crimes under federal jurisdiction if they were committed by “[a]ny Indian” within “the Indian country.”  18 U. S. C. §1153(a). (Citation: 591 U. S. 894)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=453</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:46:12 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>591 U. S. 894</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP (19-715) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The courts below did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information. (Citation: 591 U.S. 848)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=407</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:47:24 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>591 U.S. 848</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Trump v. Vance (19-635) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President. (Citation: 591 U.S. 786)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=345</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:48:01 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>591 U.S. 786</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (19-267) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses foreclose the adjudication of the employment-discrimination claims of Catholic school teachers Morrissey-Berru and Biel. (Citation: 591 U.S. 732)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=291</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:48:33 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>591 U.S. 732</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (19-431) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury had authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 to promulgate rules exempting employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees; and those rules satisfy the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice requirements. (Citation: 591 U.S. 657)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=216</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:49:14 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>591 U.S. 657</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca (19-518) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Tenth Circuit’s judgment is reversed for the reasons stated in Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. ___. (Citation: 591 U.S. 655)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=214</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:49:45 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>591 U.S. 655</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. (19-631) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Fourth Circuit’s judgment—that the robocall restriction’s government-debt exception in 47 U. S. C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii) violates the First Amendment but is severable from the remainder of the statute—is affirmed. (Citation: 591 U.S. 610)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=169</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:50:18 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>591 U.S. 610</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Chiafalo v. Washington (19-465) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. (Citation: 591 U.S. 578)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=137</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:50:55 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>591 U.S. 578</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V. (19-46) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A term styled “generic.com” is a generic name for a class of goods or services—and thus ineligible for federal trademark protection—only if the term has that meaning to consumers. (Citation: 591 U.S. 549)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=108</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:51:39 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>591 U.S. 549</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue (18-1195) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The application of the Montana Constitution’s “no-aid” provision to a state program providing tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the Federal Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. (Citation: 591 U.S. 464)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US2PP_web.pdf#page=23</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 15:52:21 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>591 U.S. 464</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society (19-177) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Because the foreign affiliates of American nongovernmental organizations possess no First Amendment rights, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act’s limitation on funding organizations with “a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking,” 22 U. S. C. §7631(f), is not unconstitutional as applied to them. (Citation: 591 U.S. 430)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US1PP_web.pdf#page=440</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 16:17:58 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>591 U.S. 430</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[June Medical Services L. L. C. v. Russo (18-1323) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Fifth Circuit’s judgment, upholding a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to hold admitting privileges at local hospitals, is reversed. (Citation: 591 U.S. 299)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US1PP_web.pdf#page=309</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 16:17:19 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>591 U.S. 299</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (19-7) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership by a single Director removable only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violates the separation of powers. (Citation: 591 U.S. 197)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US1PP_web.pdf#page=207</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 16:16:47 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>591 U.S. 197</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (19-161) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[As applied here, 8 U. S. C. §1252(e)(2)—which limits the habeas review obtainable by an alien detained for expedited removal—does not violate the Suspension or Due Process Clauses. (Citation: 591 U.S. 103)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US1PP_web.pdf#page=113</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 16:16:14 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>591 U.S. 103</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Liu v. SEC (18-1501) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[In a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action, a disgorgement award that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable relief permissible under 15 U. S. C. §78u(d)(5). (Citation: 591 U.S. 71)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US1PP_web.pdf#page=81</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 16:15:29 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>591 U.S. 71</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (18-587) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. (Citation: 591 U.S. 1)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/591US1PP_web.pdf#page=11</link>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 16:14:55 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>591 U.S. 1</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Andrus v. Texas (18-9674) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Because there is a significant question whether the court below properly considered whether counsel’s clearly deficient performance prejudiced Andrus, the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded for the court to address the prejudice question. (Citation: 590 U.S. 806)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US2PP_web.pdf#page=394</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:31:23 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>590 U.S. 806</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Bostock v. Clayton County (17-1618) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Citation: 590 U.S. 644)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US2PP_web.pdf#page=232</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:32:23 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>590 U.S. 644</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Assn. (18-1584) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Because the Department of the Interior’s decision to assign responsibility over the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service did not transform the land over which the Trail passes into land within the National Park System, the Forest Service had authority under the Mineral Leasing Act to grant a natural-gas pipeline right-of-way through lands in the George Washington National Forest traversed by the Appalachian Trail. (Citation: 590 U.S. 604)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US2PP_web.pdf#page=192</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:46:14 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>590 U.S. 604</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez (18-8369) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provision that generally prevents a prisoner from bringing suit in forma pauperis if he has had three or more prior suits “dismissed on the ground[ ] that [they] . . . fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” 28 U. S. C. §1915(g), refers to any dismissal for failure to state a claim, whether with prejudice or without. (Citation: 590 U.S. 595)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US2PP_web.pdf#page=183</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:45:29 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>590 U.S. 595</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Nasrallah v. Barr (18-1432) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Title 8 U. S. C. §§1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a removable noncitizen’s factual challenges to an order denying relief under the international Convention Against Torture, which protects noncitizens from removal to a country where they would likely face torture. (Citation: 590 U.S. 573)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US2PP_web.pdf#page=161</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:35:29 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>590 U.S. 573</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A. (17-1712) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Because petitioners, whose defined-benefit retirement plan guarantees them a fixed payment each month regardless of the plan’s value or its fiduciaries’ investment decisions, have no concrete stake in this Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 lawsuit against the fiduciaries, they lack Article III standing. (Citation: 590 U.S. 538)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US2PP_web.pdf#page=126</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:36:40 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>590 U.S. 538</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Banister v. Davis (18-6943) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Because a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend a habeas court’s judgment is not a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U. S. C. §2244(b), Banister’s appeal was timely. (Citation: 590 U.S. 504)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US2PP_web.pdf#page=92</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:37:17 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>590 U.S. 504</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC (18-1334) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Appointments Clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the President without the Senate’s advice and consent. (Citation: 590 U.S. 448)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US2PP_web.pdf#page=36</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:38:02 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>590 U.S. 448</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC (18-1048) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories to those agreements. (Citation: 590 U.S. 432)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US2PP_web.pdf#page=20</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:38:40 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>590 U.S. 432</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Opati v. Republic of Sudan (17-1268) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Plaintiffs in a suit against a foreign state for personal injury or death caused by acts of terrorism under 28 U. S. C. §1605A(c) may seek punitive damages for preenactment conduct. (Citation: 590 U.S. 418)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=434</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:53:55 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>590 U.S. 418</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. (18-1086) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Because the trademark action at issue challenged different conduct—and raised different claims—from an earlier action between the parties, Marcel cannot preclude Lucky Brand from raising new defenses, including a defense that Lucky Brand failed to press fully in the earlier suit. (Citation: 590 U.S. 405)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=421</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:55:09 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>590 U.S. 405</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Kelly v. United States (18-1059) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Because the scheme to reduce the number of George Washington Bridge toll lanes dedicated to Fort Lee, New Jersey, morning commuters as political retribution against Fort Lee’s mayor did not aim to obtain money or property from the federal Port Authority, Baroni and Kelly could not have violated the federal-program fraud or wire fraud laws. (Citation: 590 U.S. 391)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=407</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:57:43 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>590 U.S. 391</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[United States v. Sineneng-Smith (19-67) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Ninth Circuit panel’s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion where the court reached out to decide a question never raised by respondent, namely, whether 8 U. S. C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad. (Citation: 590 U.S. 371)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=387</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:58:26 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>590 U.S. 371</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York (18-280) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule on transporting firearms is moot, and any claim for damages with respect to that rule may be addressed in the first instance by the Court of Appeals and the District Court on remand. (Citation: 590 U.S. 336)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=352</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:59:05 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>590 U.S. 336</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Maine Community Health Options v. United States (18-1023) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s now expired “Risk Corridors” statute—which set a formula for calculating payments to healthcare insurers for unexpectedly unprofitable plans during the first three years of online insurance marketplaces—created a Government obligation to pay insurers the full amount of their computed losses; and petitioners properly relied on the Tucker Act to sue for damages in the Court of Federal Claims. (Citation: 590 U.S. 296)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=312</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:00:06 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>590 U.S. 296</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Georgia v. Public Resource.Org, Inc. (18-1150) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Under the government edicts doctrine, the annotations beneath the statutory provisions in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are ineligible for copyright protection. (Citation: 590 U.S. 255)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=271</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:00:52 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>590 U.S. 255</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Barton v. Barr (18-725) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[In determining eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime, an offense listed in 8 U. S. C. §1182(a)(2) committed during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal. (Citation: 590 U.S. 222)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=238</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:02:17 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>590 U.S. 222</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc. (18-1233) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to an award of profits. (Citation: 590 U.S. 212)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=228</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:03:01 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>590 U.S. 212</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (18-260) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Clean Water Act, which forbids “any addition” of any pollutant from “any point source” to “navigable waters” without the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency permit, 33 U. S. C. §§1311(a), 1362(12)(A), requires a permit when there is a direct discharge from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge. (Citation: 590 U.S. 165)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=181</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:04:07 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>590 U.S. 165</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Ramos v. Louisiana (18-5924) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Louisiana Court of Appeal’s holding that nonunanimous jury verdicts are constitutional is reversed. (Citation: 590 U.S. 83)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=99</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:07:54 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>590 U.S. 83</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP (18-916) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Title 35 U. S. C. §314(d) precludes judicial review of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review upon finding that §315(b)’s time bar did not apply. (Citation: 590 U.S. 45)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=61</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:08:54 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>590 U.S. 45</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian (17-1498) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Montana Supreme Court erred by holding that respondent landowners were not potentially responsible parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and thus did not need the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval to take remedial action. (Citation: 590 U.S. 1)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/590US1PP_web.pdf#page=17</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:09:38 EST</pubDate>
<category>Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.</category>
<category>590 U.S. 1</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (19A1016) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The District Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed to the extent it requires Wisconsin to count absentee ballots postmarked after April 7, 2020, the date of the State’s election. (Citation: 589 U.S. 423)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=315</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 12:53:09 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>589 U.S. 423</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Babb v. Wilkie (18-882) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The plain meaning of 29 U. S. C. §633a(a), the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age, but but-for causation is important in determining the appropriate remedy that may be obtained. (Citation: 589 U.S. 399)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=291</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:01:18 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>589 U.S. 399</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Kansas v. Glover (18-556) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[When a police officer lacks information negating an inference that a person driving is the vehicle’s owner, an investigative traffic stop made after running the vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (Citation: 589 U.S. 376)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=268</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:02:10 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>589 U.S. 376</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. (18-565) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The plain language of the safe-berth clause in the parties’ subcharter agreement—requiring petitioners to designate a safe berth for a vessel to load and discharge cargo—establishes a warranty of safety. (Citation: 589 U.S. 348)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=240</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:02:54 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>589 U.S. 348</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Davis v. United States (19-5421) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[There is no legal basis for the Fifth Circuit’s practice of declining to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error. (Citation: 589 U.S. 345)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=237</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:03:35 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>589 U.S. 345</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African-American Owned Media (18-1171) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in contracting under 42 U. S. C. §1981 bears the burden of showing that race was a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and that burden remains constant over the life of the lawsuit. (Citation: 589 U.S. 327)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=219</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:04:16 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>589 U.S. 327</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Kahler v. Kansas (18-6135) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Due process does not require Kansas to adopt an insanity test that turns on a defendant’s ability to recognize that his crime was morally wrong. (Citation: 589 U.S. 271)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=163</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:04:58 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>589 U.S. 271</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Allen v. Cooper (18-877) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Congress lacked authority to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits in the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990. (Citation: 589 U.S. 248)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=140</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:05:41 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Elena Kagan</category>
<category>589 U.S. 248</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr (18-776) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Because the phrase “questions of law” in the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Limited Review Provision, 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(D), includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts, the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ “factual” due diligence claims for equitable tolling purposes. (Citation: 589 U.S. 221)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=113</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:06:19 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>589 U.S. 221</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Kansas v. Garcia (17-834) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Kansas statutes under which respondents, three unauthorized aliens, were convicted—for fraudulently using another person’s Social Security number on state and federal tax-withholding forms submitted to their employers—are not expressly preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986; and respondents’ argument that those laws are preempted by implication is rejected. (Citation: 589 U.S. 191)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=83</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:06:56 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>589 U.S. 191</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma (18-1116) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requirement that plaintiffs with “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach must file suit within three years of gaining that knowledge, 29 U. S. C. §1113(2), a plaintiff does not necessarily have “actual knowledge” of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading. (Citation: 589 U.S. 178)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=70</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:07:35 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>589 U.S. 178</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Holguin-Hernandez v. United States (18-7739) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Petitioner’s district-court argument for a specific sentence (nothing or less than 12 months) preserved, for purposes of Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 51(b), his claim on appeal that the sentence imposed was unreasonably long. (Citation: 589 U.S. 169)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=61</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:08:49 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Stephen G. Breyer</category>
<category>589 U.S. 169</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Shular v. United States (18-6662) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[For purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s sentence enhancement for a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm who has at least three convictions for “serious drug offense[s],” 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(1), the “serious drug offense” definition requires only that a state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute; it does not require that the state offense match certain generic offenses. (Citation: 589 U.S. 154)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US2PP_final.pdf#page=46</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 13:09:35 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>589 U.S. 154</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[McKinney v. Arizona (18-1109) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[When a capital sentencing error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, is found on collateral review, a state appellate court may conduct the reweighing of aggravating and mitigating evidence, as permitted by Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738, on collateral review. (Citation: 589 U.S. 139)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US1PP_Web.pdf#page=180</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:20:55 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh</category>
<category>589 U.S. 139</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rodriguez v. FDIC (18-1269) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The rule of In re Bob Richards Chrysler-Plymouth Corp., 473 F. 2d 262—which specifies how federal tax refund proceeds should be allocated among members of an affiliated group of corporations that file a consolidated return—is not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking. (Citation: 589 U.S. 132)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US1PP_Web.pdf#page=173</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:20:17 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch</category>
<category>589 U.S. 132</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Hernández v. Mesa (17-1678) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A cross-border shooting by a United States Border Patrol agent does not give rise to a damages claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388. (Citation: 589 U.S. 93)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US1PP_Web.pdf#page=134</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:16:27 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr</category>
<category>589 U.S. 93</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Monasky v. Taglieri (18-935) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a child’s “habitual residence” depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case, not on categorical requirements such as an actual agreement between the parties. (Citation: 589 U.S. 68)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US1PP_Web.pdf#page=109</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:12:56 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>589 U.S. 68</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano (18-921) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A Puerto Rico trial court had no jurisdiction to issue payment and seizure orders after a pension benefits proceeding was removed to Federal District Court but before the proceeding was remanded back to the Puerto Rico court; thus the orders are void. (Citation: 589 U.S. 57)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US1PP_Web.pdf#page=98</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:14:15 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>589 U.S. 57</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Retirement Plans Comm. of IBM v. Jander (18-1165) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to give the Second Circuit the opportunity to decide whether to entertain the parties’ arguments on ERISA’s duty of prudence. (Citation: 589 U.S. 49)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US1PP_Web.pdf#page=90</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:10:00 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>589 U.S. 49</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC (18-938) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[A bankruptcy court’s order unreservedly denying relief from the automatic stay of creditor debt-collection efforts outside the bankruptcy forum, see 11 U. S. C. §362(a), is final and immediately appealable under 28 U. S. C. §158(a). (Citation: 589 U.S. 35)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US1PP_Web.pdf#page=76</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 17:00:25 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg</category>
<category>589 U.S. 35</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. (18-801) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The Patent and Trademark Office cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel as “expenses” in civil actions brought by patent applicants pursuant to 35 U. S. C. §145. (Citation: 589 U.S. 23)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US1PP_Web.pdf#page=64</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 16:57:55 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Sonia Sotomayor</category>
<category>589 U.S. 23</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Rotkiske v. Klemm (18-328) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[Absent the application of an equitable doctrine, the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act’s statute of limitations for bringing a private civil action against debt collectors who engage in certain prohibited practices, 15 U. S. C. §1692k(d), begins to run when the alleged violation occurs, not when it is discovered. (Citation: 589 U.S. 8)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US1PP_Web.pdf#page=49</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 16:56:50 EST</pubDate>
<category>Justice Clarence Thomas</category>
<category>589 U.S. 8</category>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Thompson v. Hebdon (19-122) ]]></title>

<description><![CDATA[The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for the Ninth Circuit to revisit whether Alaska’s political contribution limits are consistent with this Court’s First Amendment precedents. (Citation: 589 U.S. 1)  ]]></description>
<link>http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/preliminaryprint/589US1PP_Web.pdf#page=42</link>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2025 16:50:11 EST</pubDate>
<category>Unsigned Per Curiam Opinion</category>
<category>589 U.S. 1</category>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>