June 05, 2025
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis (24-304)
(Per Curiam)
Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (23-1039)
The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim—cannot be squared with either the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (23-1141)
Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U. S. C. §7901(a)(3), bars the lawsuit.
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Comm’n. (24-154)
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision denying petitioners a tax emption available to religious entities under Wisconsin law on the grounds that petitioners were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” because they neither engaged in proselytization nor limited their charitable services to Catholics violated the First Amendment.
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. (23-1201)
To exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign state, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not require proof of “minimum contacts” over and above the contacts already required by the Act’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.
BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman (23-1259)
Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint; a party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard can apply.