A case in which the Court will decide whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.

A case in which the Court will consider the scope of property interests and fraud in government contracting, particularly when deception occurs without clear economic harm.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the E…

A case in which the Court will decide whether and how the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies in cases involving seized property, specifically regarding the requirements for establishing a commercial nexus with the United States and the burden of proof at different stages of litigation.…

A case in which the Court will decide whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

A case in which the Court will clarify the pleading standards to show knowledge or intent for Private Securities Litigation Reform Act claims that rely on internal company documents.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, when a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, a motion to reopen filed the next business day is sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).

A case in which the Court will decide whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the phrase “entitled… to benefits” includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.

A case in which the Court will decide whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which …

A case in which the Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1).

A case in which the Court will decide whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.

A capital case in which the Court will decide whether to allow Oklahoma to execute Petitioner Richard Glossip after numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct and other errors, where even the state no longer defends the capital sentence.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a party who obtains a preliminary injunction is a “prevailing party” for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has the authority to regulate so-called “ghost guns”—that is, firearms without serial numbers that can be assembled from parts.

A case in which the Court will decide whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a plaintiff whose state-court lawsuit has been removed by the defendants to federal court can seek to have the case sent back to state court by amending the complaint to omit all references to federal law.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether Florida S.B. 7072’s content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment and whether the law’s individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that a former U.S. President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency's rule first causes harm to the plaintiff.

A case in which the Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment does not prevent a city from enforcing a ban on public camping against homeless individuals.

A case in which the Court overruled its decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

A case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, does not include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.

A case in which the Court stayed the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan, for failure to adequately explain its emissions reduction requirements, likely violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act—which requires hospitals receiving Medicare funding to offer “necessary stabilizing treatment” to pregnant women in emergencies—preempts an Idaho law that criminalizes most abortions in the state.…

A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violates the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

A case in which the Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.

A case in which the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) does not criminalize gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether the government’s requests to large social media companies that they take steps to prevent the dissemination of purported misinformation constituted coercion and thus transformed those private companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated users’ First Amendment rights.…

A case in which the Court held that the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

A case in which the Court held that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is triggered when the prosecution in a criminal trial seeks to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst.

A case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, does not violate the Second Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether to approve a consent decree resolving claims among Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico over the delivery of water from the Rio Grande Basin to Elephant Butte.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the denial of a visa to the non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen infringes on a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen and, if so, whether the government properly justified that decision.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the probable-cause exception in Nieves v. Barlett can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened; and whether Nieves is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.

A case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power under the 16th Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that in a prosecution for drug trafficking—where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs—Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust la…