{ "meta": { "source": "CourtListener REST API (Free Law Project) + SCOTUS PDFs", "sourceUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/", "watchlistPath": "data/gavel-watchlist.json", "fetchedAt": "2026-08-07", "builtAt": "2026-08-07T20:07:34Z", "sectionName": "The Gavel", "sectionHref": "/gavel/docket", "notes": [ "Watchlist is editorial; not an official ranking of importance.", "Opinion/audio metadata from CourtListener REST v4 (/search/, /audio/, /dockets/, /clusters/, /opinions/).", "Full opinion text prefers CourtListener opinion detail; falls back to SCOTUS PDF extract.", "PDFs are archived under public/gavel/pdfs for in-app download.", "Justices index is the sitting nine-member Court (seniority order).", "Justice portraits archived from Free Law Project judge-pics (public-domain federal works).", "This build: 62/627 with full text, 62 with PDF, 92 with lineup rows." ] }, "cases": [ { "id": "scotus-14-8349", "slug": "foster-v-chatman", "label": "Foster v. Chatman", "docketNumber": "14-8349", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Foster v. Chatman", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3066335, "dateFiled": "2016-05-23", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 488", "195 L. Ed. 2d 1", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3486", "136 S. Ct. 1737", "84 U.S.L.W. 4308", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 181" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 9823487, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 9823488, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent" }, { "opinionId": 3205768, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-8349.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-8349%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3205874, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3205874, "caseName": "Foster v. Chatman", "dateFiled": "2016-05-23", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 488", "195 L. Ed. 2d 1", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3486", "136 S. Ct. 1737", "84 U.S.L.W. 4308", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 181" ], "citeCount": 466, "judge": "Roberts, Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3205874/foster-v-chatman/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-8349_6k47.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9823487, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nChief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.\nPetitioner Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in a Georgia court. During jury selection at his trial, the State exercised peremptory strikes against all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve. Foster argued that the State's use of those strikes was racially motivated, in violation of our decision in Batson v. Kentucky, ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9823488, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent", "snippet": "\nJustice THOMAS, dissenting.\nThirty years ago, Timothy Foster confessed to murdering Queen Madge White after sexually assaulting her with a bottle of salad dressing. In the decades since, Foster has sought to vacate his conviction and death sentence on the ground that prosecutors violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 3205768, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-8349_6k47.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/foster-v-chatman", "holdingAuthor": "Roberts, Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-14-10154", "slug": "voisine-v-united-states", "label": "Voisine v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-10154", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Voisine v. United States", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3084930, "dateArgued": "2016-02-29", "dateFiled": "2016-06-27", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 686", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 4061", "136 S. Ct. 2272", "195 L. Ed. 2d 736", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 352", "84 U.S.L.W. 4525" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3217227, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-10154.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-10154%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3217333, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3217333, "caseName": "Voisine v. United States", "dateFiled": "2016-06-27", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 686", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 4061", "136 S. Ct. 2272", "195 L. Ed. 2d 736", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 352", "84 U.S.L.W. 4525" ], "citeCount": 305, "judge": "Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3217333/voisine-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10154_19m1.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3217227, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10154_19m1.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n Federal law prohibits any person convicted of a \"misdemeanor crime of domestic violence\" from possessing a firearm.\n \n 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922\n \n (g)(9). That phrase is defined to include any misdemeanor committed against ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8422634, "caseName": "Voisine v. United States", "dateFiled": "2016-01-11", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 872", "193 L. Ed. 2d 705", "84 U.S.L.W. 3382", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 164" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8422634/voisine-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8392985, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of petitioners for appointment of counsel granted and Virginia G. Villa, Esq., of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioners in this case.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8420950, "caseName": "Voisine v. United States", "dateFiled": "2015-10-30", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 386", "193 L. Ed. 2d 309", "84 U.S.L.W. 3236", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 6761" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8420950/voisine-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8391298, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15232, "caseName": "Voisine v. United States", "dateArgued": "2016-02-29", "durationSeconds": 3146, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-10154.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15232/stephen-l-voisine-and-william-e-armstrong-iii-v-united-states/", "snippet": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, there are three reasons to exclude reckless misdemeanors from the phrase use of physical force as it occurs in 921A.33. The first is that it's consistent with the definition of use that this Court has implemented in other cases. Second, it is consistent with the common law definition of battery. And third, it is consistent with the intentionality in\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/voisine-v-united-states", "holdingAuthor": "Kagan" }, { "id": "scotus-14-1373", "slug": "utah-v-strieff", "label": "Utah v. Strieff", "docketNumber": "14-1373", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Utah v. Strieff", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3080129, "dateArgued": "2016-02-22", "dateFiled": "2016-06-20", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 232", "195 L. Ed. 2d 400", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3926" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3214776, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-1373.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-1373%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3214882, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3214882, "caseName": "Utah v. Strieff", "dateFiled": "2016-06-20", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 232", "195 L. Ed. 2d 400", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3926" ], "citeCount": 367, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3214882/utah-v-strieff/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3214776, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15236, "caseName": "Utah v. Strieff", "dateArgued": "2016-02-22", "durationSeconds": 3575, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-1373.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15236/utah-v-edward-joseph-strieff-jr/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case 14-1373, Utah v. Strieff. Mr. Green. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Courts typically apply the exclusionary rule to suppress unlawfully seized evidence. The question here is whether to suppress evidence lawfully seized in a search incident to a warrant arrest because the arresting officer found the warrant in a stop later judged to be unlawful. Un\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/utah-v-strieff", "holdingAuthor": null }, { "id": "scotus-14-1375", "slug": "crst-van-expedited-inc-v-eeoc", "label": "CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC", "docketNumber": "14-1375", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3065466, "dateArgued": "2016-03-28", "dateFiled": "2016-05-19", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 419", "136 S. Ct. 1642", "194 L. Ed. 2d 707", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3350", "84 U.S.L.W. 4287", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 160", "100 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,557", "129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 134" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 9823394, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 3204918, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" }, { "opinionId": 9823393, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-1375.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-1375%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3205024, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3205024, "caseName": "CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n", "dateFiled": "2016-05-19", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 419", "136 S. Ct. 1642", "194 L. Ed. 2d 707", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3350", "84 U.S.L.W. 4287", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 160", "100 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45,557", "129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 134" ], "citeCount": 236, "judge": "Kennedy, Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3205024/crst-van-expedited-inc-v-equal-empt-opportunity-commn/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1375_09m1.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9823394, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice THOMAS, concurring.\nUnder Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a district court may award attorney's fees to \"the prevailing party.\" 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-5(k). In Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 3204918, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1375_09m1.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9823393, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\n*1646Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis case involves the interpretation of a statutory provision allowing district courts to award attorney's fees to defendants in employment discrimination actions. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8421838, "caseName": "CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n", "dateFiled": "2015-12-04", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 582", "193 L. Ed. 2d 464", "84 U.S.L.W. 3320", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 7678" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8421838/crst-van-expedited-inc-v-equal-empt-opportunity-commn/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8392187, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15614, "caseName": "CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC", "dateArgued": "2016-03-28", "durationSeconds": 3643, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-1375.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15614/crst-van-expedited-inc-v-equal-employment-opportunity-commission/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Case No. 14-1375, CRST Van Expedited v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mr. Smith. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. On the issue we initially asked this Court to resolve in the petition for certiorari, the parties are now in complete agreement. That issue, of course, was whether a prevailing defendant in a Title VII case is barred\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/crst-van-expedited-inc-v-eeoc", "holdingAuthor": "Kennedy, Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-14-1418", "slug": "zubik-v-burwell", "label": "Zubik v. Burwell", "docketNumber": "14-1418", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Zubik v. Burwell", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3064187, "dateArgued": "2016-03-23", "dateFiled": "2016-05-16", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 403", "136 S. Ct. 1557", "194 L. Ed. 2d 696", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3047" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3203655, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-1418.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-1418%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3203761, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3203761, "caseName": "Zubik v. Burwell", "dateFiled": "2016-05-16", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 403", "136 S. Ct. 1557", "194 L. Ed. 2d 696", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3047" ], "citeCount": 43, "judge": "Per Curiam", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3203761/zubik-v-burwell/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1418_8758.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3203655, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1418_8758.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n PER CURIAM.\n \n\n Petitioners are primarily nonprofit organizations that provide health insurance to their employees. Federal regulations require petitioners to cover certain contraceptives as part of their health plans, unless petitioners submit a form either to their insurer or to the Federal Government, stating that they object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive coverage. Pe", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15566, "caseName": "Zubik v. Burwell", "dateArgued": "2016-03-23", "durationSeconds": 5654, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-1418.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15566/david-a-zubik-v-sylvia-burwell-secretary-of-health-and-human-services/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument this morning in Case 14-1418, Zubik v. Burwell and the Consolidated Cases. Mr. Clement? Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Little Sisters of the Poor and their co-petitioners face a dilemma that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not allow. They can adhere to their religious beliefs and pay millions of dollars in penalties, or they can take\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/zubik-v-burwell", "holdingAuthor": "Per Curiam" }, { "id": "scotus-14-1457", "slug": "betterman-v-montana", "label": "Betterman v. Montana", "docketNumber": "14-1457", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Betterman v. Montana", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3065467, "dateArgued": "2016-03-28", "dateFiled": "2016-05-19", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 437", "136 S. Ct. 1609", "194 L. Ed. 2d 723", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3349", "2016 WL 2903423" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3204919, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-1457.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-1457%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3205025, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3205025, "caseName": "Betterman v. Montana", "dateFiled": "2016-05-19", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 437", "136 S. Ct. 1609", "194 L. Ed. 2d 723", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3349", "2016 WL 2903423" ], "citeCount": 4, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3205025/betterman-v-montana/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1457_21o2.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3204919, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1457_21o2.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15615, "caseName": "Betterman v. Montana", "dateArgued": "2016-03-28", "durationSeconds": 3427, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-1457.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15615/brandon-thomas-betterman-v-montana/", "snippet": "We will hear argument next in Case 14-1457, Betterman v. Montana. Mr. Rowley. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Speedy Trial Clause applies to a criminal prosecution through its culmination in sentencing. It is not cut off when the defendant pleads or is found guilty. The Court has said that the clause guarantees an early and proper disposition of a criminal charge. And that gua\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/betterman-v-montana", "holdingAuthor": null }, { "id": "scotus-14-1468", "slug": "birchfield-v-north-dakota", "label": "Birchfield v. North Dakota", "docketNumber": "14-1468", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3081755, "dateArgued": "2016-04-20", "dateFiled": "2016-06-23", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 438", "195 L. Ed. 2d 560", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 4058", "136 S. Ct. 2160" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3216391, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-1468.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-1468%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3216497, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3216497, "caseName": "Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard", "dateFiled": "2016-06-23", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 438", "195 L. Ed. 2d 560", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 4058", "136 S. Ct. 2160" ], "citeCount": 1446, "judge": "ALITOdelivered", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3216497/birchfield-v-n-dakota-william-robert-bernard/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3216391, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1468_8n59.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Justice ALITOdelivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n Drunk drivers take a grisly toll on the Nation's roads, claiming thousands of lives, injuring many more victims, and inflicting billions of dollars in property damage every year. To fight this problem, all States have laws that prohibit motorists from driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) that exceeds a specified level. But d", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8424452, "caseName": "Birchfield v. Dakota", "dateFiled": "2016-04-04", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 1535", "194 L. Ed. 2d 601", "84 U.S.L.W. 3555", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 2315" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8424452/birchfield-v-dakota/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8394806, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for enlargement of time for oral argument, and for divided argument granted and the time is divided as follows: 35 minutes for petitioners, 15 minutes for respondent North Dakota, 10 minutes for respondent Minnesota, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8423610, "caseName": "Birchfield v. Dakota", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 1241", "194 L. Ed. 2d 169", "84 U.S.L.W. 3475", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 1384" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8423610/birchfield-v-dakota/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8393962, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of Indiana Tech Law School Amicus Project for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of neither party granted. Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8422030, "caseName": "Birchfield v. Dakota", "dateFiled": "2015-12-11", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 614", "193 L. Ed. 2d 494", "84 U.S.L.W. 3336", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 7877" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8422030/birchfield-v-dakota/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8392379, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota granted.*615Case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 16405, "caseName": "Birchfield v. North Dakota", "dateArgued": "2016-04-20", "durationSeconds": 4281, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-1468.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/16405/danny-birchfield-v-north-dakota/", "snippet": "and the related cases. Mr. Rothfeld? Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The fundamental problem with the statutes at issue in these three cases is that they make it a criminal offense to assert a constitutional right. Under laws of North Dakota and Minnesota, a person who is stopped on suspicion of impaired driving is obligated to take a warrantless chemical test to determ\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/birchfield-v-north-dakota", "holdingAuthor": "ALITOdelivered" }, { "id": "scotus-14-1504", "slug": "wittman-v-personhuballah", "label": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "docketNumber": "14-1504", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3066334, "dateArgued": "2016-03-21", "dateFiled": "2016-05-23", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 539", "195 L. Ed. 2d 37", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3353", "136 S. Ct. 1732", "84 U.S.L.W. 4322", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 179" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3205767, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-1504.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-1504%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3205873, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3205873, "caseName": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "dateFiled": "2016-05-23", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 539", "195 L. Ed. 2d 37", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3353", "136 S. Ct. 1732", "84 U.S.L.W. 4322", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 179" ], "citeCount": 69, "judge": "Breyer", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3205873/wittman-v-personhuballah/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1504_6khn.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3205767, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1504_6khn.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n Ten Members of Congress from Virginia, intervenors in the District Court below, have appealed a judgment from a three-judge panel striking down a congressional redistricting plan applicable to the November 2016 election. We conclude that the intervenors now lack standing to pursue the appeal. And we consequently order the appeal dismi", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8423613, "caseName": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 1241", "194 L. Ed. 2d 169", "84 U.S.L.W. 3475", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 1138" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8423613/wittman-v-personhuballah/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8393965, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of the State appellees for divided argument and enlargement of time for oral argument granted and the time is divided as follows: 35 minutes for appellants, 10 minutes for State appellees, 15 minutes for private appellees, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8423090, "caseName": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "dateFiled": "2016-02-01", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 998", "194 L. Ed. 2d 16", "84 U.S.L.W. 3423", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 973" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8423090/wittman-v-personhuballah/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8393442, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court denied.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8421342, "caseName": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "dateFiled": "2015-11-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 499", "193 L. Ed. 2d 364", "84 U.S.L.W. 3274", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 7167" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8421342/wittman-v-personhuballah/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8391690, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits. In addition to the questions presented by the jurisdictional statement, parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether appellants lack standing because none reside in or represent the only congressional district whose constitutionality is at issue in this case.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8418928, "caseName": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "dateFiled": "2015-09-28", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 25", "192 L. Ed. 2d 996", "84 U.S.L.W. 3129", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 4671" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8418928/wittman-v-personhuballah/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8389275, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: Whether appellants have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. Briefs, not to exceed 15 pages each, are to be filed simultaneously with Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before Tuesday, October 13, 2015. Reply briefs, not to exceed 10 pages each, are to the filed with Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before Tuesday, October 20, 201", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15569, "caseName": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "dateArgued": "2016-03-21", "durationSeconds": 4283, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-1504.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15569/robert-j-wittman-v-gloria-personhuballah/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 14-1504, Wittman v. Personhuballah. Mr. Carver. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the sum total of the alleged Shaw violation here is that the legislature treated black-majority district three the same way as it treated the ten-majority white districts. It's undisputed that with respect to all of those districts, they preserved the core\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/wittman-v-personhuballah", "holdingAuthor": "Breyer" }, { "id": "scotus-14-1513", "slug": "halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-electronics-inc", "label": "Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.", "docketNumber": "14-1513", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3077781, "dateArgued": "2016-02-23", "dateFiled": "2016-06-13", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 93", "195 L. Ed. 2d 278", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3776", "136 S. Ct. 1923", "118 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1761" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3212516, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-1513.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-1513%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3212622, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3212622, "caseName": "Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.", "dateFiled": "2016-06-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 93", "195 L. Ed. 2d 278", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3776", "136 S. Ct. 1923", "118 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1761" ], "citeCount": 476, "judge": "Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3212622/halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-electronics-inc/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1513_db8e.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3212516, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1513_db8e.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n Section 284 of the Patent Act provides that, in a case of infringement, courts \"may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.\"\n \n 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284\n \n . In\n \n In re Seagate ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8423057, "caseName": "Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.", "dateFiled": "2016-01-25", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 993", "194 L. Ed. 2d 2", "84 U.S.L.W. 3414", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 911" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8423057/halo-elecs-inc-v-pulse-elecs-inc/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8393409, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted. Joint motion of respondent for divided argument denied.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8420793, "caseName": "Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.", "dateFiled": "2015-10-19", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 356", "193 L. Ed. 2d 289", "84 U.S.L.W. 3211", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 6634" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8420793/halo-elecs-inc-v-pulse-elecs-inc/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8391141, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "snippet": "No opinion found. Click here to view source material.", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 8391140, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15235, "caseName": "Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.", "dateArgued": "2016-02-23", "durationSeconds": 3592, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-1513.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15235/halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-electronics-inc/", "snippet": "Your argument next in Case 14-1513, Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics and Consolidated Case 14-1520, Stryker Corporation v. Zimmer. Mr. Wall? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Federal Circuit has developed such a rigid test for enhanced damages in patent infringement cases that a large amount of money is spent on it. The Federal Circuit has done that by moving away from hist\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-electronics-inc", "holdingAuthor": "Roberts" }, { "id": "scotus-14-614", "slug": "hughes-v-talen-energy-marketing-llc", "label": "Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC", "docketNumber": "14-614", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3055088, "dateArgued": "2016-02-24", "dateFiled": "2016-04-19", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 150", "136 S. Ct. 1288", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 2797", "194 L. Ed. 2d 414", "46 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20078", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 84", "84 U.S.L.W. 4204" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 9822761, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 3195444, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" }, { "opinionId": 9822762, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-614.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-614%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3195550, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3195550, "caseName": "Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC", "dateFiled": "2016-04-19", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 150", "136 S. Ct. 1288", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 2797", "194 L. Ed. 2d 414", "46 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20078", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 84", "84 U.S.L.W. 4204" ], "citeCount": 91, "judge": "Ginsburg, Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3195550/hughes-v-talen-energy-marketing-llc/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-614_k5fm.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9822761, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe Federal Power Act (FPA), 41 Stat. 1063, as amended, 16 U.S.C. \u00a7 791a et seq., vests in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive jurisdiction over wholesale sales of electricity in the interstate market. FERC's regulatory scheme includes an a", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 3195444, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-614_k5fm.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9822762, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice SOTOMAYOR, concurring.\nI write separately to clarify my understanding of the pre-emption principles that should guide this Court's analysis of the Federal Power Act and that underpin its conclusion in these cases.\nThe process through which consumers obtain energy stretches across state and federal regulatory domains. The Federal Power Act authorizes the States to regulate ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8423055, "caseName": "Hughes v. Talen Energy Mktg., LLC", "dateFiled": "2016-01-25", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 993", "194 L. Ed. 2d 2" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8423055/hughes-v-talen-energy-mktg-llc/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8393407, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Joint motion of petitioner for divided argument granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8420947, "caseName": "Hughes v. PPL Energyplus, LLC", "dateFiled": "2015-10-19", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 382", "193 L. Ed. 2d 288", "84 U.S.L.W. 3211", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 6659" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8420947/hughes-v-ppl-energyplus-llc/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8391295, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted. The case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15233, "caseName": "Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC", "dateArgued": "2016-02-24", "durationSeconds": 3707, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-614.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15233/w-kevin-hughes-chairman-maryland-public-service-commission-v-talen/", "snippet": "We will hear argument this morning in Case No. 14-614, Hughes, Chairman of the Maryland Public Service Commission v. Talen Energy Marketing and the consolidated case. Mr. Strauss. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Maryland determined that new generation was needed for local reliability, so it directed its retail utilities to sign 20-year contracts with a competitively selected proje\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/hughes-v-talen-energy-marketing-llc", "holdingAuthor": "Ginsburg, Sotomayor" }, { "id": "scotus-14-6166", "slug": "taylor-v-united-states", "label": "Taylor v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-6166", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Taylor v. United States", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3080130, "dateArgued": "2016-02-23", "dateFiled": "2016-06-20", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 301", "195 L. Ed. 2d 456", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3928", "136 S. Ct. 2074", "84 U.S.L.W. 4462", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 272" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3214777, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" }, { "opinionId": 9824225, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 9824226, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-6166.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-6166%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3214883, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3214883, "caseName": "Taylor v. United States", "dateFiled": "2016-06-20", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 301", "195 L. Ed. 2d 456", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3928", "136 S. Ct. 2074", "84 U.S.L.W. 4462", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 272" ], "citeCount": 97, "judge": "Alito, Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3214883/taylor-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-6166_o7jp.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3214777, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-6166_o7jp.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9824225, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe Hobbs Act makes it a crime for a person to affect commerce, or to attempt to do so, by robbery. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1951(a). The Act defines \"commerce\" broadly as interstate commerce \"and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.\" \u00a7 1951(b)(3). ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9824226, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent", "snippet": "\nJustice THOMAS, dissenting.\nThe Hobbs Act makes it a federal crime to commit a robbery that \"affects\" \"commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.\" 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1951(a), 1951(b)(3). Under the Court's decision today, the Government can obtain a Hobbs Act conviction without proving that the defendant's ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8418929, "caseName": "Taylor v. United States", "dateFiled": "2015-10-01", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 26", "192 L. Ed. 2d 998", "84 U.S.L.W. 3163", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 4688" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8418929/taylor-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8389276, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15234, "caseName": "Taylor v. United States", "dateArgued": "2016-02-23", "durationSeconds": 3161, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-6166.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15234/david-anthony-taylor-v-united-states/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning, Case 14-6166, Taylor v. United States. Mr. Jones. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Hobbs Act has two elements. The first requires that the accused obtain property from another by either extortion or robbery. The second is a jurisdictional element, and that the consequence of either the extortion or the robbery creates an interference with\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/taylor-v-united-states", "holdingAuthor": "Alito, Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-14-916", "slug": "kingdomware-technologies-inc-v-united-states", "label": "Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-916", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3079190, "dateArgued": "2016-02-22", "dateFiled": "2016-06-16", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 162", "195 L. Ed. 2d 334", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3921", "136 S. Ct. 1969", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 254", "84 U.S.L.W. 4416" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3213873, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-916.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-916%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3213979, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3213979, "caseName": "Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States", "dateFiled": "2016-06-16", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 162", "195 L. Ed. 2d 334", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3921", "136 S. Ct. 1969", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 254", "84 U.S.L.W. 4416" ], "citeCount": 446, "judge": "Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3213979/kingdomware-technologies-inc-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-916_6j37.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3213873, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-916_6j37.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n \n *1973\n \n Justice THOMAS\n \n\n delivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n Petitioner Kingdomware Technologies, Inc., a veteran-owned small business, unsuccessfully vied for a federal contract from the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide emergency-notification services. Kingdomware sued, argui", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15237, "caseName": "Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States", "dateArgued": "2016-02-22", "durationSeconds": 3465, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/14-916.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15237/kingdomware-technologies-inc-v-united-states/", "snippet": "Will your argument first this morning in Case No. 14-916, Kingdomware Technologies v. United States? Mr. Saunders. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, by its plain terms, the 2006 Veterans Act requires the VA to consider veterans first under the Rule of Two before awarding contracts to other suppliers. That mandate, which applies only to the VA and reflects the agency's unique obligat\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/kingdomware-technologies-inc-v-united-states", "holdingAuthor": "Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-15-109", "slug": "simmons-v-himmelreich", "label": "Simmons v. Himmelreich", "docketNumber": "15-109", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Simmons v. Himmelreich", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3070308, "dateArgued": "2016-03-22", "dateFiled": "2016-06-06", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 621", "195 L. Ed. 2d 106", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3613", "136 S. Ct. 1843", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 209", "84 U.S.L.W. 4349" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3209686, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-109.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-109%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3209792, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3209792, "caseName": "Simmons v. Himmelreich", "dateFiled": "2016-06-06", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 621", "195 L. Ed. 2d 106", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3613", "136 S. Ct. 1843", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 209", "84 U.S.L.W. 4349" ], "citeCount": 125, "judge": "Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3209792/simmons-v-himmelreich/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-109_p860.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3209686, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-109_p860.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows plaintiffs to seek damages from the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees.\n \n 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1346\n \n (b), 2674. Many of the FTCA's proced", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8421218, "caseName": "Simmons v. Himmelreich", "dateFiled": "2015-11-06", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 445", "193 L. Ed. 2d 346", "84 U.S.L.W. 3257", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 7035" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8421218/simmons-v-himmelreich/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8391566, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15567, "caseName": "Simmons v. Himmelreich", "dateArgued": "2016-03-22", "durationSeconds": 2944, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-109.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15567/jermaine-simmons-v-walter-j-himmelreich/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 15-109, Simmons v. Himmelreich. Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. When an FTCA action is dismissed under Section 2680, the resulting judgment of dismissal triggers the judgment bar for two basic reasons. First, the bar applies to any FTCA judgment, and a 2680 dismissal counts as a judgment under any sensible definition of\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/simmons-v-himmelreich", "holdingAuthor": "Sotomayor" }, { "id": "scotus-15-138", "slug": "rjr-nabisco-inc-v-european-community", "label": "RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community", "docketNumber": "15-138", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3080131, "dateArgued": "2016-03-21", "dateFiled": "2016-06-20", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 325", "195 L. Ed. 2d 476", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3925" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3214778, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-138.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-138%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3214884, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3214884, "caseName": "RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community", "dateFiled": "2016-06-20", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 325", "195 L. Ed. 2d 476", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3925" ], "citeCount": 47, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3214884/rjr-nabisco-inc-v-european-community/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-138_5866.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3214778, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-138_5866.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15570, "caseName": "RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community", "dateArgued": "2016-03-21", "durationSeconds": 3555, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-138.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15570/rjr-nabisco-inc-v-the-european-community/", "snippet": "We will hear argument next in Case No. 15-138, RJR Nabisco v. European Community. Mr. Katsas. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Second Circuit extended civil RICO to claims involving foreign injuries, foreign enterprises, and foreign patterns of racketeering. Its holding is wrong for two reasons. First, RICO's private civil cause of action does not provide redress for foreign in\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/rjr-nabisco-inc-v-european-community", "holdingAuthor": null }, { "id": "scotus-15-145", "slug": "husky-int-l-electronics-inc-v-ritz", "label": "Husky Int'l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz", "docketNumber": "15-145", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3064191, "dateArgued": "2016-03-01", "dateFiled": "2016-05-16", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 355", "136 S. Ct. 1581", "194 L. Ed. 2d 655", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3048", "75 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 943", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 135", "84 U.S.L.W. 4270", "62 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 156" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3203659, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" }, { "opinionId": 9823250, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 9823251, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-145.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-145%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3203765, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3203765, "caseName": "Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz", "dateFiled": "2016-05-16", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 355", "136 S. Ct. 1581", "194 L. Ed. 2d 655", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3048", "75 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 943", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 135", "84 U.S.L.W. 4270", "62 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 156" ], "citeCount": 446, "judge": "Ginsburg, Kennedy, Roberts, Sotomayor, Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3203765/husky-international-electronics-inc-v-ritz/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-145_nkp1.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3203659, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-145_nkp1.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9823250, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe Bankruptcy Code prohibits debtors from discharging debts \u201cobtained by ... false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.\u201d 11 U.S.C. \u00a7 523(a)(2)(A). The Fifth Circuit held that a debt is \u201cobtained by ... actual fraud\u201d only if the debtor\u2019s fraud involves a false representa-, tion to a creditor. That ruling deepened an existing split among the Circuits over whe", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9823251, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent", "snippet": "\nJustice THOMAS,\ndissenting.\nThe Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge \u201cany debt ... for money, property, [or] services ... to the extent obtained by ... false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.\u201d 11 U.S.C. \u00a7 523(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). The Court holds that \u201cactual fraud\u201d encompasses fraudulent transfer schemes effectuated without any false representation to a creditor and concludes ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8176146, "caseName": "Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz", "dateFiled": "2016-02-18", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 1001", "194 L. Ed. 2d 98" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8176146/husky-international-electronics-inc-v-ritz/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8137927, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nMotion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.\n", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8176092, "caseName": "Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz", "dateFiled": "2015-11-06", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 445", "193 L. Ed. 2d 346", "84 U.S.L.W. 3257", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 7036", "2015 WL 4600346" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8176092/husky-international-electronics-inc-v-ritz/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8137871, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nPetition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted.\n", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15230, "caseName": "Husky Int'l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz", "dateArgued": "2016-03-01", "durationSeconds": 3221, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-145.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15230/husky-international-electronics-inc-v-daniel-lee-ritz-jr/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case No. 15-145, Husky Int'l Electronics v. Ritz. Mr. Boretsky. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Congress amended the discharge bar in 1978 to add actual fraud as an additional ground for barring discharge. That amendment must be given meaning. Our interpretation is the only one that does so. Consistent with the common law understanding that Congress cod\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/husky-int-l-electronics-inc-v-ritz", "holdingAuthor": "Ginsburg, Kennedy, Roberts, Sotomayor, Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-15-233", "slug": "puerto-rico-v-franklin-cal-tax-free-trust", "label": "Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust", "docketNumber": "15-233", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3077780, "dateArgued": "2016-03-22", "dateFiled": "2016-06-13", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 115", "195 L. Ed. 2d 298", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3777", "136 S. Ct. 1938" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3212515, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" }, { "opinionId": 9824057, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 9824058, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-233.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-233%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3212621, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3212621, "caseName": "Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust", "dateFiled": "2016-06-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 115", "195 L. Ed. 2d 298", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3777", "136 S. Ct. 1938" ], "citeCount": 210, "judge": "Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Alito", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3212621/puerto-rico-v-franklin-california-tax-free-trust/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-233_i42j.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3212515, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-233_i42j.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9824057, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice THOMAS\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe Federal Bankruptcy Code preempts state bankruptcy laws that enable insolvent municipalities to restructure their debts over the objections of creditors and instead requires municipalities to restructure such debts under Chapter 9 of the Code. 11 U.S.C. \u00a7 903(1). We must decide whether Puerto Rico is a \u201cState\u201d for purposes of this pre-emption provision. We", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9824058, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent", "snippet": "\nJustice SOTOMAYOR,\nwith whom Justice GINSBURG joins, dissenting.\nChapter 9 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code allows States\u2019 \u201cmunicipalities\u201d \u2014 cities, utilities, levee boards, and the like \u2014 to file for federal bankruptcy with their State\u2019s authorization. . But the Code excludes Puerto Rican municipalities from accessing federal bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 101(52), 109(c)(2). Because of this bar, Puerto Ri", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8338793, "caseName": "Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust", "dateFiled": "2015-12-04", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "542 B.R. 582" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8338793/puerto-rico-v-franklin-california-tax-free-trust/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8307124, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nMotion of Fundaci\u00f3n Angel Ramos, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in No. 15-233 granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted. The case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.\nJustice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.\n", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15568, "caseName": "Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust", "dateArgued": "2016-03-22", "durationSeconds": 3651, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-233.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15568/commonwealth-of-puerto-rico-v-franklin-california-tax-free-trust/", "snippet": "and the Consolidated Case. Mr. Landau. Mr. Landau, thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. This case presents the question whether Congress has stripped Puerto Rico of access to any legal mechanism to restructure the debts of its public utilities, which provide essential services to its citizens, like electricity and water. Respondents contend that Congress denied Puerto Rico a\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/puerto-rico-v-franklin-cal-tax-free-trust", "holdingAuthor": "Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Alito" }, { "id": "scotus-15-274", "slug": "whole-woman-s-health-v-hellerstedt", "label": "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt", "docketNumber": "15-274", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3085623, "dateArgued": "2016-03-02", "dateFiled": "2016-06-27", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 582" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3217422, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-274.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-274%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3217528, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3217528, "caseName": "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt", "dateFiled": "2016-06-27", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 582" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3217528/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274diff_97bf.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3217422, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274diff_97bf.pdf", "snippet": " Summary\n 6/27/2016 6:03:00 PM\n\n\n Differences exist between documents.\n\n New Document: Old Document:\n 15-274_new 15-274\n 107 pages (679 KB) 107 pages (678 KB)\n 6/27/2016 6:02:36 PM 6/27/2016 6:02:35 PM\n Used to display results.\n\n\n\n Get started: first change is on page 6.\n\n No pages were deleted\n\n\n\n\n How to read this report\n\n Highlight indicates a change.\n Deleted indicates deleted content.\n ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 3217529, "caseName": "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt", "dateFiled": "2016-06-27", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 582", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 4063" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3217529/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_new_e18f.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3217423, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_new_e18f.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15228, "caseName": "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt", "dateArgued": "2016-03-02", "durationSeconds": 5087, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-274.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15228/whole-womans-health-v-john-hellerstedt-commissioner-texas-department-of/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument this morning in Case 15-274, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Ms. Tocchi? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Texas requirements undermine the careful balance struck in Casey between states' legitimate interests in regulating abortion and women's fundamental liberty to make personal decisions about their pregnancies. They are unnecessary health regulations\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/whole-woman-s-health-v-hellerstedt", "holdingAuthor": null }, { "id": "scotus-15-290", "slug": "army-corps-of-engineers-v-hawkes-co", "label": "Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.", "docketNumber": "15-290", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3068461, "dateArgued": "2016-03-30", "dateFiled": "2016-05-31", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 590", "136 S. Ct. 1807", "195 L. Ed. 2d 77", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3489", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 195", "84 U.S.L.W. 4339", "82 ERC (BNA) 1465" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 9823702, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 9823703, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 3207861, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-290.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-290%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3207967, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3207967, "caseName": "U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co.", "dateFiled": "2016-05-31", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 590", "136 S. Ct. 1807", "195 L. Ed. 2d 77", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3489", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 195", "84 U.S.L.W. 4339", "82 ERC (BNA) 1465" ], "citeCount": 308, "judge": "Roberts, Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3207967/us-army-corps-of-engrs-v-hawkes-co/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-290_6k37.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9823702, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nChief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into \"the waters of the United States.\" 33 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1311(a), 1362(7), (12). Because it can be difficult to determine whether a particular parcel of property contains such waters, the U.S. Army ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9823703, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice KAGAN, concurring.\nI join the Court's opinion in full. I write separately to note that for me, unlike for Justice GINSBURG, see post, at 1817 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment), the memorandum of agreement between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency is central to the disposition of this case. For an agency action to be final, \"the action must be one by which ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 3207861, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-290_6k37.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8422034, "caseName": "U.S. Army Corp of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co.", "dateFiled": "2015-12-11", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 615", "193 L. Ed. 2d 495" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8422034/us-army-corp-of-engrs-v-hawkes-co/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8392383, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of National Association of Home Builders for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15611, "caseName": "Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.", "dateArgued": "2016-03-30", "durationSeconds": 3674, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-290.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15611/united-states-army-corps-of-engineers-v-hawkes-co-inc/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next this morning in Case No. 15-290, the United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Company. Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, a jurisdictional determination issued by the Army Corps of Engineers does not file agency action because it does not order any person to do or refrain from doing anything and does not alter anyone's legal rights and obl\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/army-corps-of-engineers-v-hawkes-co", "holdingAuthor": "Roberts, Kagan" }, { "id": "scotus-15-338", "slug": "sheriff-v-gillie", "label": "Sheriff v. Gillie", "docketNumber": "15-338", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Sheriff v. Gillie", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3064189, "dateArgued": "2016-03-29", "dateFiled": "2016-05-16", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 317", "136 S. Ct. 1594", "194 L. Ed. 2d 625", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3050", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 147", "84 U.S.L.W. 4259" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3203657, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-338.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-338%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3203763, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3203763, "caseName": "Sheriff v. Gillie", "dateFiled": "2016-05-16", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 317", "136 S. Ct. 1594", "194 L. Ed. 2d 625", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3050", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 147", "84 U.S.L.W. 4259" ], "citeCount": 47, "judge": "Ginsburg", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3203763/sheriff-v-gillie/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-338_lkgn.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3203657, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-338_lkgn.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n Ohio law authorizes the State's Attorney General to retain, as independent contractors, \"special counsel\" to act on the Attorney General's behalf in collecting certain debts owed to Ohio or an instrumentality of the State. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. \u00a7 109.08 (Lexis 2014). As required by the Attorney General, special counsel use the Attorney", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8423932, "caseName": "Sheriff v. Gillie", "dateFiled": "2016-03-18", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 1407", "194 L. Ed. 2d 386", "84 U.S.L.W. 3523", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 1861" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8423932/sheriff-v-gillie/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8394285, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8422028, "caseName": "Sheriff v. Gillie", "dateFiled": "2015-12-11", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 614", "193 L. Ed. 2d 495", "84 U.S.L.W. 3336", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 7876" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8422028/sheriff-v-gillie/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8392377, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15612, "caseName": "Sheriff v. Gillie", "dateArgued": "2016-03-29", "durationSeconds": 3701, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-338.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15612/mark-j-sheriff-v-pamela-gillie/", "snippet": "v. Sharif v. Gillie, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, given resource constraints, Ohio law has always authorized its Attorney General to appoint special counsel to undertake the Attorney General's duty of representing the State in the courts. While the Attorney General may appoint general deputies today, special counsel remain integral to the office. For example, the of\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/sheriff-v-gillie", "holdingAuthor": "Ginsburg" }, { "id": "scotus-15-339", "slug": "ross-v-blake", "label": "Ross v. Blake", "docketNumber": "15-339", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Ross v. Blake", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3070309, "dateArgued": "2016-03-29", "dateFiled": "2016-06-06", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 632", "195 L. Ed. 2d 117", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3614", "136 S. Ct. 1850", "84 U.S.L.W. 4352", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 205" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3209687, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-339.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-339%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3209793, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3209793, "caseName": "Ross v. Blake", "dateFiled": "2016-06-06", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 632", "195 L. Ed. 2d 117", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3614", "136 S. Ct. 1850", "84 U.S.L.W. 4352", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 205" ], "citeCount": 4465, "judge": "Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3209793/ross-v-blake/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-339_1b7d.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3209687, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-339_1b7d.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) mandates that an inmate exhaust \"such administrative remedies as\n \n *1855\n \n are available\" before bringing suit to challenge prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1997e(a). The court below adopted ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8423933, "caseName": "Ross v. Blake", "dateFiled": "2016-03-18", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 1407", "194 L. Ed. 2d 386", "84 U.S.L.W. 3523", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 1859" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8423933/ross-v-blake/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8394286, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8422029, "caseName": "Ross v. Blake", "dateFiled": "2015-12-11", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 614", "193 L. Ed. 2d 495", "84 U.S.L.W. 3336", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 7875" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8422029/ross-v-blake/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8392378, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15613, "caseName": "Ross v. Blake", "dateArgued": "2016-03-29", "durationSeconds": 3105, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-339.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15613/michael-ross-petitioner-v-shaidon-blake/", "snippet": "You will hear argument next in Case No. 15-339, Ross v. Blake. Ms. Bernhardt. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. In this case, the Fourth Circuit adopted a nontextual exception to the requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that a prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies. That exception, if accepted, would eviscerate Congress's intent in adopt\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/ross-v-blake", "holdingAuthor": "Kagan" }, { "id": "scotus-15-375", "slug": "supap-kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc", "label": "Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.", "docketNumber": "15-375", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3079189, "dateArgued": "2016-04-25", "dateFiled": "2016-06-16", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 197", "195 L. Ed. 2d 368", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3922", "136 S. Ct. 1979", "118 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1770", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 251", "44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1877", "84 U.S.L.W. 4420" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3213872, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-375.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-375%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3213978, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3213978, "caseName": "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.", "dateFiled": "2016-06-16", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 197", "195 L. Ed. 2d 368", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3922", "136 S. Ct. 1979", "118 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1770", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 251", "44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1877", "84 U.S.L.W. 4420" ], "citeCount": 224, "judge": "Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3213978/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-375_4f57.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3213872, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-375_4f57.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides that a district court \"may ... award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party.\"\n \n 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 505\n \n . The question presented here is whether a court, in exerc", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8424471, "caseName": "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.", "dateFiled": "2016-04-08", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 1538", "194 L. Ed. 2d 623", "84 U.S.L.W. 3567", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 2447" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8424471/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8394825, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8422753, "caseName": "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.", "dateFiled": "2016-01-15", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 890", "193 L. Ed. 2d 783", "84 U.S.L.W. 3405", "2016 WL 205944", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 629" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8422753/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8393104, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 16497, "caseName": "Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.", "dateArgued": "2016-04-25", "durationSeconds": 3477, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-375.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/16497/supap-kirtsaeng-dba-bluechristine99-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 15-375, Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons. Mr. Rosenkranz. Rosenkranz, Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. When Congress modified the American rule in the Copyright Act, it was not just trying to punish those who took unreasonable positions. It wanted to encourage parties to advance important principles, even where the other\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/supap-kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc", "holdingAuthor": "Kagan" }, { "id": "scotus-15-415", "slug": "encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro", "label": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "docketNumber": "15-415", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3080132, "dateArgued": "2016-04-20", "dateFiled": "2016-06-20", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 211", "195 L. Ed. 2d 282", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3924", "136 S. Ct. 2117", "195 L. Ed. 2d 382", "84 U.S.L.W. 4424", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 295", "26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 877" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3214779, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-415.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-415%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3214885, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3214885, "caseName": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "dateFiled": "2016-06-20", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 211", "195 L. Ed. 2d 282", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3924", "136 S. Ct. 2117", "195 L. Ed. 2d 382", "84 U.S.L.W. 4424", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 295", "26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 877" ], "citeCount": 490, "judge": "Kennedy", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3214885/encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-415_mlho.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3214779, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-415_mlho.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n This case addresses whether a federal statute requires payment of increased compensation to certain automobile dealership employees for overtime work. The federal statute in question is the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),\n \n 29 U.S.C", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8424472, "caseName": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "dateFiled": "2016-04-08", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 1538", "194 L. Ed. 2d 623", "84 U.S.L.W. 3567", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 2445" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8424472/encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8394826, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8422754, "caseName": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "dateFiled": "2016-01-15", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 890", "193 L. Ed. 2d 783", "84 U.S.L.W. 3405", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 635" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8422754/encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8393105, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 16404, "caseName": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "dateArgued": "2016-04-20", "durationSeconds": 3722, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-415.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/16404/encino-motorcars-llc-v-hector-navarro/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case No. 15-415, Encino Motorcars v. Navarro. Mr. Clement. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, service advisors are salespeople principally engaged in the servicing of automobiles. I do not think there is any realistic dispute here that service advisors are, in fact, salespeople. And it seems clear to me that service advisors, as their name suggests, are pr\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro", "holdingAuthor": "Kennedy" }, { "id": "scotus-15-420", "slug": "united-states-v-bryant", "label": "United States v. Bryant", "docketNumber": "15-420", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "United States v. Bryant", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3077779, "dateArgued": "2016-04-19", "dateFiled": "2016-06-13", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 140", "195 L. Ed. 2d 317", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3775", "136 S. Ct. 1954", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 235", "84 U.S.L.W. 4400", "2016 WL 3221519" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3212514, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" }, { "opinionId": 9824055, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 9824056, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-420.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-420%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3212620, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 4236644, "caseName": "United States v. Bryant", "dateFiled": "2016-07-07", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4236644/united-states-v-bryant/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-420diff_0n13.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 4013905, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-420diff_0n13.pdf", "snippet": " Summary\n 7/7/2016 4:12:59 PM\n\n\n Differences exist between documents.\n\n New Document: Old Document:\n 15-420_new 15-420\n 23 pages (174 KB) 23 pages (177 KB)\n 7/7/2016 4:12:51 PM 7/7/2016 4:12:51 PM\n Used to display results.\n\n\n\n Get started: first change is on page 8.\n\n No pages were deleted\n\n\n\n\n How to read this report\n\n Highlight indicates a change.\n Deleted indicates deleted content.\n\n ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 3212620, "caseName": "United States v. Bryant", "dateFiled": "2016-06-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 140", "195 L. Ed. 2d 317", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3775", "136 S. Ct. 1954", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 235", "84 U.S.L.W. 4400", "2016 WL 3221519" ], "citeCount": 48, "judge": "Ginsburg, Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3212620/united-states-v-bryant/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-420_5425.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3212514, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-420_5425.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9824055, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice GINSBURG\ndelivered the\nopinion of the Court.\nIn response to the high incidence of domestic violence against Native American women, Congress, in 2005, enacted 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 117(a), which targets serial offenders. Section 117(a) makes it a federal crime for any person to \u201ccommi[t] a domestic assault within .,. Indian country\u201d if the person has at least two prior final convictions for dome", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9824056, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion", "snippet": "\n*1967Justice THOMAS,\nconcurring.\nThe Court holds that neither the Sixth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment\u2019s Due Process Clause prohibits the Government from using Michael Bryant\u2019s uncoun-seled tribal-court convictions as predicates for the federal crime of committing a domestic assault within Indian country. Ante, at 1966; see 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 11", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 16407, "caseName": "United States v. Bryant", "dateArgued": "2016-04-19", "durationSeconds": 2639, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-420.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/16407/united-states-v-michael-bryant-jr/", "snippet": "You will hear argument first this morning in Case No. 15-420, United States v. Bryant. Ms. Prelogar. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Congress enacted Section 117 in response to the epidemic of domestic violence in Indian Country. The Ninth Circuit was wrong to strike down the statute as applied to offenders like Respondent, who have abused and battered their intimate partners agai\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-bryant", "holdingAuthor": "Ginsburg, Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-15-446", "slug": "cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc-v-lee", "label": "Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee", "docketNumber": "15-446", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3080133, "dateArgued": "2016-04-25", "dateFiled": "2016-06-20", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 261", "195 L. Ed. 2d 423", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3927", "136 S. Ct. 2131", "119 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1065", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 278", "84 U.S.L.W. 4438" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3214780, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" }, { "opinionId": 9824227, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 9824228, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-446.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-446%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3214886, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3214886, "caseName": "Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee", "dateFiled": "2016-06-20", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 261", "195 L. Ed. 2d 423", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3927", "136 S. Ct. 2131", "119 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1065", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 278", "84 U.S.L.W. 4438" ], "citeCount": 323, "judge": "Breyer, Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3214886/cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc-v-lee/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-446_ihdk.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3214780, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-446_ihdk.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9824227, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 100 et seq., creates a process called \"inter partes review.\" That review process allows a third party to ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reexamine the claims in an already-issued patent and to ca", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9824228, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice THOMAS, concurring.\nThe Court invokes Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8423885, "caseName": "Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee", "dateFiled": "2016-03-07", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 1400", "194 L. Ed. 2d 357", "84 U.S.L.W. 3496", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 1687" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8423885/cuozzo-speed-techs-llc-v-lee/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8394238, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8422755, "caseName": "Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee", "dateFiled": "2016-01-15", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 890", "193 L. Ed. 2d 783", "84 U.S.L.W. 3405", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 632" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8422755/cuozzo-speed-techs-llc-v-lee/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8393106, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 16498, "caseName": "Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee", "dateArgued": "2016-04-25", "durationSeconds": 3666, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-446.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/16498/cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc-v-michelle-k-lee-under-secretary-of/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case 15-446, Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee. Mr. Beeney. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, I'd like to begin this morning with why the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation expedient in no way comports with the congressional purpose of inter partes review, and then address why the Board's ultra-virus determination in instituting inter partes rev\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc-v-lee", "holdingAuthor": "Breyer, Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-15-458", "slug": "dietz-v-bouldin", "label": "Dietz v. Bouldin", "docketNumber": "15-458", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Dietz v. Bouldin", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3072262, "dateArgued": "2016-04-26", "dateFiled": "2016-06-09", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 40", "195 L. Ed. 2d 161", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3772", "136 S. Ct. 1885", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 220", "84 U.S.L.W. 4371" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3211503, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-458.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-458%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3211609, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3211609, "caseName": "Dietz v. Bouldin", "dateFiled": "2016-06-09", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 40", "195 L. Ed. 2d 161", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3772", "136 S. Ct. 1885", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 220", "84 U.S.L.W. 4371" ], "citeCount": 820, "judge": "Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3211609/dietz-v-bouldin/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-458_b07d.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3211503, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-458_b07d.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n In this case, a jury returned a legally impermissible verdict. The trial judge did not realize the error until shortly after he excused the jury. He brought the jury back and ordered them to deliberate again to correct the mistake. The question before us is whether a federal district court can recall a jury it has discharged, or wh", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8424480, "caseName": "Dietz v. Bouldin", "dateFiled": "2016-04-08", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 1539", "194 L. Ed. 2d 623", "84 U.S.L.W. 3567", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 2448" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8424480/dietz-v-bouldin/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8394834, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8422787, "caseName": "Dietz v. Bouldin", "dateFiled": "2016-01-19", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 896", "193 L. Ed. 2d 788", "84 U.S.L.W. 3405", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 673" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8422787/dietz-v-bouldin/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8393138, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 16496, "caseName": "Dietz v. Bouldin", "dateArgued": "2016-04-26", "durationSeconds": 3125, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-458.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/16496/rocky-dietz-v-hillary-bouldin/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case 15-458, Dietz v. Bouldin. Mr. Shanmugam. Shanmugam, Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. When a judge discharges a jury after it reaches a verdict, the jury's service is at an end and the jurors return to being ordinary members of the public. This case presents the question whether a district court has inherent authority under Article III of\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/dietz-v-bouldin", "holdingAuthor": "Sotomayor" }, { "id": "scotus-15-474", "slug": "mcdonnell-v-united-states", "label": "McDonnell v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-474", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "McDonnell v. United States", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3084931, "dateArgued": "2016-04-27", "dateFiled": "2016-06-27", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 550", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 4062", "136 S. Ct. 2355", "195 L. Ed. 2d 639", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 345", "84 U.S.L.W. 4565" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3217228, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-474.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-474%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3217334, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3217334, "caseName": "McDonnell v. United States", "dateFiled": "2016-06-27", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 550", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 4062", "136 S. Ct. 2355", "195 L. Ed. 2d 639", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 345", "84 U.S.L.W. 4565" ], "citeCount": 266, "judge": "Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3217334/mcdonnell-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-474_ljgm.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3217228, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-474_ljgm.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n In 2014, the Federal Government indicted former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife, Maureen McDonnell, on bribery charges. The charges related to the acceptance by the McDonnells of $175,000 in loans, gifts, and other benefits from Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams, while Governor McDonnell was in office. William", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8423886, "caseName": "McDonnell v. United States", "dateFiled": "2016-03-07", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 1400", "194 L. Ed. 2d 358", "84 U.S.L.W. 3496", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 1733" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8423886/mcdonnell-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8394239, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of petitioner to deem the Court of Appeals joint appendix and supplemental appendix as the joint appendix in this Court granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8422757, "caseName": "McDonnell v. United States", "dateFiled": "2016-01-15", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 891", "193 L. Ed. 2d 784", "84 U.S.L.W. 3405", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 625" ], "citeCount": 2, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8422757/mcdonnell-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8393108, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 16494, "caseName": "McDonnell v. United States", "dateArgued": "2016-04-27", "durationSeconds": 3782, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-474.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/16494/robert-f-mcdonnell-v-united-states/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument this morning in Case 15-474, McDonnell v. United States. Mr. Francisco. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The government argues that in quid pro quo bribery, official action encompasses anything within the range of official duties. In order to reach that conclusion, it asks that you disregard a 9-0 decision of this Court. The government is wrong. In order to enga\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/mcdonnell-v-united-states", "holdingAuthor": "Roberts" }, { "id": "scotus-15-5040", "slug": "williams-v-pennsylvania", "label": "Williams v. Pennsylvania", "docketNumber": "15-5040", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Williams v. Pennsylvania", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3072260, "dateArgued": "2016-02-29", "dateFiled": "2016-06-09", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 1", "195 L. Ed. 2d 132", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3774", "136 S. Ct. 1899", "84 U.S.L.W. 4359", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 224" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 9823984, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 9823985, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent" }, { "opinionId": 3211501, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-5040.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-5040%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3211607, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3211607, "caseName": "Williams v. Pennsylvania", "dateFiled": "2016-06-09", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 1", "195 L. Ed. 2d 132", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 3774", "136 S. Ct. 1899", "84 U.S.L.W. 4359", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 224" ], "citeCount": 385, "judge": "Kennedydelivered, Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3211607/williams-v-pennsylvania/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-5040_6537.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9823984, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice KENNEDYdelivered the opinion of the Court.\nIn this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the decision of a postconviction court, which had granted relief to a prisoner convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. One of the justices on the State Supreme Court had been the district attorney who gave his official approval to seek the death penalty in the prisoner's case. The justice in question denied th", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9823985, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent", "snippet": "\nJustice THOMAS, dissenting.\nThe Court concludes that it violates the Due Process Clause for the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, a former district attorney who was not the trial prosecutor in petitioner Terrance Williams' case, to review Williams' fourth petition for state postconviction review. Ante, at 1906 - 1907, 1910. That conclusion is flawed. The specter of bias alone in a judicial proceeding is n", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 3211501, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-5040_6537.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8418941, "caseName": "Williams v. Pennsylvania", "dateFiled": "2015-10-01", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 28", "192 L. Ed. 2d 999", "84 U.S.L.W. 3164", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 4679" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8418941/williams-v-pennsylvania/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8389288, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15231, "caseName": "Williams v. Pennsylvania", "dateArgued": "2016-02-29", "durationSeconds": 3606, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-5040.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15231/terrance-williams-v-pennsylvania/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case No. 15-5040, Williams v. Pennsylvania. Mr. Lev. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, due process does not allow a district attorney to make the decision to seek the death penalty against the defendant and then in the same case become a judge of the conduct of the prosecutor who carried out that decision and obtained that result. In this case, when he wa\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/williams-v-pennsylvania", "holdingAuthor": "Kennedydelivered, Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-15-5238", "slug": "nichols-v-united-states", "label": "Nichols v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-5238", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Nichols v. United States", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3050473, "dateArgued": "2016-03-01", "dateFiled": "2016-04-04", "citations": [ "578 U.S. 104", "136 S. Ct. 1113", "194 L. Ed. 2d 324", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 2276", "84 U.S.L.W. 4190", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 72" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 3191118, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-5238.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-5238%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3191206, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3191206, "caseName": "Nichols v. United States", "dateFiled": "2016-04-04", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "578 U.S. 104", "136 S. Ct. 1113", "194 L. Ed. 2d 324", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 2276", "84 U.S.L.W. 4190", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 72" ], "citeCount": 70, "judge": "ALITOdelivered", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3191206/nichols-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-5238_khlo.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 3191118, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-5238_khlo.pdf", "snippet": "\n\n\n Justice ALITOdelivered the opinion of the Court.\n \n\n Lester Ray Nichols, a registered sex offender living in the Kansas City area, moved to the Philippines without notifying Kansas authorities of his change in residence. For that omission Nichols was convicted of failing to update his sex-offender registration, in violation of\n ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8421217, "caseName": "Nichols v. United States", "dateFiled": "2015-11-06", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 445", "193 L. Ed. 2d 346", "84 U.S.L.W. 3257", "2015 U.S. LEXIS 7039" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8421217/nichols-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8391565, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 15229, "caseName": "Nichols v. United States", "dateArgued": "2016-03-01", "durationSeconds": 3074, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-5238.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/15229/lester-ray-nichols-v-united-states/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Case No. 15-5238, Nichols v. United States. Mr. Hansmeier. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, until three weeks ago, a sex offender who moved to a foreign country was not subject to any Federal registration requirement in the United States, unless and until he returned to the United States. Below, the Tenth Circuit nonetheless held that it is\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/nichols-v-united-states", "holdingAuthor": "ALITOdelivered" }, { "id": "scotus-15-6092", "slug": "mathis-v-united-states", "label": "Mathis v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-6092", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Mathis v. United States", "status": "decided", "docketId": 3081752, "dateArgued": "2016-04-26", "dateFiled": "2016-06-23", "citations": [ "579 U.S. 500", "195 L. Ed. 2d 604", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 4060", "136 S. Ct. 2243", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 315", "84 U.S.L.W. 4512" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 9824286, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 9824287, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 9824288, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion" }, { "opinionId": 9824289, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent" }, { "opinionId": 3216388, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-6092.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-6092%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 3216494, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 3216494, "caseName": "Mathis v. United States", "dateFiled": "2016-06-23", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "579 U.S. 500", "195 L. Ed. 2d 604", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 4060", "136 S. Ct. 2243", "26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 315", "84 U.S.L.W. 4512" ], "citeCount": 2788, "judge": "Kagan, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3216494/mathis-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-6092_1an2.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9824286, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA or Act), 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 924(e), imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on certain federal defendants who have three prior convictions for a \"violent felony,\" including \"burglary, arson, or extortion.\" To determine whether a pas", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9824287, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion", "snippet": "\n*2258Justice KENNEDY, concurring.\nThe Court's opinion is required by its precedents, and so I join it, with one reservation set forth below.\nIn no uncertain terms, the Court has held that the word \"burglary\" in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) \"refers to the elements of the statute of conviction, not to the facts of", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9824288, "type": "concurrence-opinion", "typeLabel": "Concurrence Opinion", "snippet": "\nJustice THOMAS, concurring.\nI join the Court's opinion, which faithfully applies our precedents. The Court holds that the modified categorical approach cannot be used to determine the specific means by which a defendant committed a crime. Ante, at 2253 - 2254. By rightly refusing to apply the modified categorical approach, the Court avoids further extending its precedents that limit a criminal defendant's right to a pu", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 9824289, "type": "dissent", "typeLabel": "Dissent", "snippet": "\nJustice ALITO, dissenting.\nSabine Moreau lives in Solre-sur-Sambre, a town in Belgium located 38 miles south of Brussels. One day she set out in her car to pick up a friend at the Brussels train station, a trip that should have taken under an hour. She programmed her GPS and headed off. Although the GPS sent her south, not north, she apparently thought nothing of it. She dutifully stayed ", "hasFullText": false }, { "id": 3216388, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-6092_1an2.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 8422776, "caseName": "Mathis v. United States", "dateFiled": "2016-01-19", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "136 S. Ct. 894", "193 L. Ed. 2d 788", "84 U.S.L.W. 3405", "2016 WL 207258", "2016 U.S. LEXIS 710" ], "citeCount": 1, "judge": null, "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8422776/mathis-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": null, "opinions": [ { "id": 8393127, "type": "lead-opinion", "typeLabel": "Lead Opinion", "snippet": "Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted.", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 16495, "caseName": "Mathis v. United States", "dateArgued": "2016-04-26", "durationSeconds": 3709, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/15-6092.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/16495/richard-mathis-v-united-states/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 15-6092, Mathis v. United States. Mr. Fleming. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Iowa statute under which Mr. Mathis was convicted defines one crime, and Iowa does not need to prove generic burglary to convict under it. The Eighth Circuit below, and the government here, nonetheless, want to use the modified categorical approach, not\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/mathis-v-united-states", "holdingAuthor": "Kagan, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito" }, { "id": "scotus-15-6418", "slug": "welch-v-united-states", "label": "Welch v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-6418", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Welch v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-6418.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-6418%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/welch-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-15-674", "slug": "united-states-v-texas-3", "label": "United States v. Texas", "docketNumber": "15-674", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "United States v. Texas", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-674.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-674%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-texas-3" }, { "id": "scotus-15-7", "slug": "universal-health-services-inc-v-united-states", "label": "Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-7", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-7.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-7%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/universal-health-services-inc-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-74-2773", "slug": "duncan-v-owens", "label": "Duncan v. Owens", "docketNumber": "74-2773", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Duncan v. Owens", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/74-2773.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2274-2773%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/duncan-v-owens" }, { "id": "scotus-75-946", "slug": "fisher-v-university-of-tex-at-austin", "label": "Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin", "docketNumber": "75-946", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/75-946.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2275-946%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fisher-v-university-of-tex-at-austin" }, { "id": "scotus-76-1847", "slug": "green-v-brennan", "label": "Green v. Brennan", "docketNumber": "76-1847", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Green v. Brennan", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/76-1847.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2276-1847%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/green-v-brennan" }, { "id": "scotus-94-6309", "slug": "torres-v-lynch", "label": "Torres v. Lynch", "docketNumber": "94-6309", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Torres v. Lynch", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/94-6309.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2294-6309%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/torres-v-lynch" }, { "id": "scotus-98-10159", "slug": "nebraska-v-parker", "label": "Nebraska v. Parker", "docketNumber": "98-10159", "term": "OT 2015", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2015.", "caseName": "Nebraska v. Parker", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/98-10159.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2298-10159%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nebraska-v-parker" }, { "id": "scotus-14-1055", "slug": "lightfoot-v-cendant-mortgage", "label": "Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage", "docketNumber": "14-1055", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-1055.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-1055%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lightfoot-v-cendant-mortgage" }, { "id": "scotus-14-1538", "slug": "life-technologies-corp-v-promega-corp", "label": "Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp.", "docketNumber": "14-1538", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-1538.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-1538%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/life-technologies-corp-v-promega-corp" }, { "id": "scotus-14-9496", "slug": "manuel-v-joliet", "label": "Manuel v. Joliet", "docketNumber": "14-9496", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Manuel v. Joliet", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/14-9496.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2214-9496%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/manuel-v-joliet" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1031", "slug": "howell-v-howell", "label": "Howell v. Howell", "docketNumber": "15-1031", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Howell v. Howell", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1031.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1031%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/howell-v-howell" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1039", "slug": "sandoz-inc-v-amgen-inc", "label": "Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.", "docketNumber": "15-1039", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1039.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1039%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/sandoz-inc-v-amgen-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1111", "slug": "bank-of-america-corp-v-miami", "label": "Bank of America Corp. v. Miami", "docketNumber": "15-1111", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Bank of America Corp. v. Miami", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1111.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1111%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bank-of-america-corp-v-miami" }, { "id": "scotus-15-118", "slug": "hernandez-v-mesa", "label": "Hernandez v. Mesa", "docketNumber": "15-118", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Hernandez v. Mesa", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-118.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-118%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hernandez-v-mesa" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1189", "slug": "impressions-products-inc-v-lexmark-int-l-inc", "label": "Impressions Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.", "docketNumber": "15-1189", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Impressions Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1189.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1189%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/impressions-products-inc-v-lexmark-int-l-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1191", "slug": "lynch-v-morales-santana", "label": "Lynch v. Morales-Santana", "docketNumber": "15-1191", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Lynch v. Morales-Santana", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1191.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1191%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lynch-v-morales-santana" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1194", "slug": "packingham-v-north-carolina", "label": "Packingham v. North Carolina", "docketNumber": "15-1194", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Packingham v. North Carolina", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1194.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1194%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/packingham-v-north-carolina" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1204", "slug": "jennings-v-rodriguez", "label": "Jennings v. Rodriguez", "docketNumber": "15-1204", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Jennings v. Rodriguez", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1204.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1204%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/jennings-v-rodriguez" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1248", "slug": "mclane-co-v-eeoc", "label": "McLane Co. v. EEOC", "docketNumber": "15-1248", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "McLane Co. v. EEOC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1248.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1248%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mclane-co-v-eeoc" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1251", "slug": "nlrb-v-sw-general-inc", "label": "NLRB v. SW General, Inc.", "docketNumber": "15-1251", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "NLRB v. SW General, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1251.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1251%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nlrb-v-sw-general-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1256", "slug": "nelson-v-colorado", "label": "Nelson v. Colorado", "docketNumber": "15-1256", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Nelson v. Colorado", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1256.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1256%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nelson-v-colorado" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1262", "slug": "mccrory-v-harris", "label": "McCrory v. Harris", "docketNumber": "15-1262", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "McCrory v. Harris", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1262.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1262%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mccrory-v-harris" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1293", "slug": "lee-v-tam", "label": "Lee v. Tam", "docketNumber": "15-1293", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Lee v. Tam", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1293.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1293%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lee-v-tam" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1358", "slug": "ziglar-v-abbasi", "label": "Ziglar v. Abbasi", "docketNumber": "15-1358", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Ziglar v. Abbasi", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1358.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1358%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/ziglar-v-abbasi" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1391", "slug": "expressions-hair-design-v-schneiderman", "label": "Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman", "docketNumber": "15-1391", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1391.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1391%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/expressions-hair-design-v-schneiderman" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1406", "slug": "goodyear-tire-rubber-co-v-haeger", "label": "Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger", "docketNumber": "15-1406", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1406.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1406%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/goodyear-tire-rubber-co-v-haeger" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1498", "slug": "lynch-v-dimaya", "label": "Lynch v. Dimaya", "docketNumber": "15-1498", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Lynch v. Dimaya", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1498.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1498%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lynch-v-dimaya" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1500", "slug": "lewis-v-clarke", "label": "Lewis v. Clarke", "docketNumber": "15-1500", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Lewis v. Clarke", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1500.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1500%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lewis-v-clarke" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1503", "slug": "turner-v-united-states", "label": "Turner v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-1503", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Turner v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1503.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1503%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/turner-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-15-214", "slug": "murr-v-wisconsin", "label": "Murr v. Wisconsin", "docketNumber": "15-214", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Murr v. Wisconsin", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-214.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-214%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/murr-v-wisconsin" }, { "id": "scotus-15-423", "slug": "bolivarian-republic-of-venezuela-v-helmerich-payne-int-l-drilling-co", "label": "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co.", "docketNumber": "15-423", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-423.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-423%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bolivarian-republic-of-venezuela-v-helmerich-payne-int-l-drilling-co" }, { "id": "scotus-15-457", "slug": "microsoft-corp-v-baker", "label": "Microsoft Corp. v. Baker", "docketNumber": "15-457", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Microsoft Corp. v. Baker", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-457.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-457%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/microsoft-corp-v-baker" }, { "id": "scotus-15-497", "slug": "fry-v-napoleon-community-schools", "label": "Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools", "docketNumber": "15-497", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-497.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-497%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fry-v-napoleon-community-schools" }, { "id": "scotus-15-513", "slug": "state-farm-fire-casualty-co-v-united-states-ex-rel-rigsby", "label": "State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States, ex rel. Rigsby", "docketNumber": "15-513", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States, ex rel. Rigsby", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-513.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-513%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/state-farm-fire-casualty-co-v-united-states-ex-rel-rigsby" }, { "id": "scotus-15-537", "slug": "bravo-fernandez-v-united-states", "label": "Bravo-Fernandez v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-537", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Bravo-Fernandez v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-537.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-537%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bravo-fernandez-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-15-577", "slug": "trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer", "label": "Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer", "docketNumber": "15-577", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-577.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-577%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/trinity-lutheran-church-of-columbia-inc-v-comer" }, { "id": "scotus-15-5991", "slug": "shaw-v-united-states", "label": "Shaw v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-5991", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Shaw v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-5991.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-5991%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/shaw-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-15-606", "slug": "pena-rodriguez-v-colorado", "label": "Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado", "docketNumber": "15-606", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-606.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-606%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/pena-rodriguez-v-colorado" }, { "id": "scotus-15-628", "slug": "salman-v-united-states", "label": "Salman v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-628", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Salman v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-628.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-628%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/salman-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-15-649", "slug": "czyzewski-v-jevic-holding-corp", "label": "Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.", "docketNumber": "15-649", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-649.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-649%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/czyzewski-v-jevic-holding-corp" }, { "id": "scotus-15-680", "slug": "bethune-hill-v-virginia-state-bd-of-elections", "label": "Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections", "docketNumber": "15-680", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-680.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-680%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bethune-hill-v-virginia-state-bd-of-elections" }, { "id": "scotus-15-7250", "slug": "manrique-v-united-states", "label": "Manrique v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-7250", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Manrique v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-7250.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-7250%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/manrique-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-15-777", "slug": "samsung-electronics-co-v-apple-inc", "label": "Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.", "docketNumber": "15-777", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-777.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-777%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/samsung-electronics-co-v-apple-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-15-797", "slug": "moore-v-texas", "label": "Moore v. Texas", "docketNumber": "15-797", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Moore v. Texas", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-797.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-797%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/moore-v-texas" }, { "id": "scotus-15-8049", "slug": "buck-v-davis", "label": "Buck v. Davis", "docketNumber": "15-8049", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Buck v. Davis", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-8049.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-8049%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/buck-v-davis" }, { "id": "scotus-15-827", "slug": "endrew-f-v-douglas-county-school-dist-re-1", "label": "Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1", "docketNumber": "15-827", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-827.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-827%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/endrew-f-v-douglas-county-school-dist-re-1" }, { "id": "scotus-15-8544", "slug": "beckles-v-united-states", "label": "Beckles v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-8544", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Beckles v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-8544.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-8544%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/beckles-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-15-866", "slug": "star-athletica-l-l-c-v-varsity-brands-inc", "label": "Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.", "docketNumber": "15-866", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-866.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-866%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/star-athletica-l-l-c-v-varsity-brands-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-15-9260", "slug": "dean-v-united-states", "label": "Dean v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-9260", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Dean v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-9260.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-9260%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/dean-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-15-927", "slug": "sca-hygiene-products-aktiebolag-v-first-quality-baby-products-llc", "label": "SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC", "docketNumber": "15-927", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-927.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-927%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/sca-hygiene-products-aktiebolag-v-first-quality-baby-products-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-16-142", "slug": "honeycutt-v-united-states", "label": "Honeycutt v. United States", "docketNumber": "16-142", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Honeycutt v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-142.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-142%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/honeycutt-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-16-149", "slug": "coventry-health-care-of-mo-v-nevils", "label": "Coventry Health Care of Mo. v. Nevils", "docketNumber": "16-149", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Coventry Health Care of Mo. v. Nevils", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-149.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-149%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/coventry-health-care-of-mo-v-nevils" }, { "id": "scotus-16-240", "slug": "weaver-v-massachusetts", "label": "Weaver v. Massachusetts", "docketNumber": "16-240", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Weaver v. Massachusetts", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-240.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-240%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/weaver-v-massachusetts" }, { "id": "scotus-16-254", "slug": "water-splash-inc-v-menon", "label": "Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon", "docketNumber": "16-254", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-254.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-254%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/water-splash-inc-v-menon" }, { "id": "scotus-16-309", "slug": "maslenjak-v-united-states", "label": "Maslenjak v. United States", "docketNumber": "16-309", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Maslenjak v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-309.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-309%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/maslenjak-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-16-32", "slug": "kindred-nursing-centers-ltd-v-clark", "label": "Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. v. Clark", "docketNumber": "16-32", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. v. Clark", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-32.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-32%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/kindred-nursing-centers-ltd-v-clark" }, { "id": "scotus-16-327", "slug": "lee-v-united-states", "label": "Lee v. United States", "docketNumber": "16-327", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Lee v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-327.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-327%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lee-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-16-341", "slug": "tc-heartland-llc-v-kraft-foods-group-brands-llc", "label": "TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC", "docketNumber": "16-341", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-341.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-341%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/tc-heartland-llc-v-kraft-foods-group-brands-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-16-348", "slug": "midland-funding-llc-v-johnson", "label": "Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson", "docketNumber": "16-348", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-348.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-348%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/midland-funding-llc-v-johnson" }, { "id": "scotus-16-349", "slug": "henson-v-santander-consumer-usa-inc", "label": "Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.", "docketNumber": "16-349", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-349.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-349%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/henson-v-santander-consumer-usa-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-16-369", "slug": "county-of-los-angeles-v-mendez", "label": "County of Los Angeles v. Mendez", "docketNumber": "16-369", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "County of Los Angeles v. Mendez", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-369.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-369%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/county-of-los-angeles-v-mendez" }, { "id": "scotus-16-373", "slug": "california-public-employees-retirement-system-v-anz-securities-inc", "label": "California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc.", "docketNumber": "16-373", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-373.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-373%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/california-public-employees-retirement-system-v-anz-securities-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-16-399", "slug": "perry-v-merit-systems-protection-bd", "label": "Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.", "docketNumber": "16-399", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-399.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-399%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/perry-v-merit-systems-protection-bd" }, { "id": "scotus-16-405", "slug": "bnsf-r-co-v-tyrrell", "label": "BNSF R. Co. v. Tyrrell", "docketNumber": "16-405", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "BNSF R. Co. v. Tyrrell", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-405.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-405%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bnsf-r-co-v-tyrrell" }, { "id": "scotus-16-466", "slug": "bristol-myers-squibb-co-v-superior-court-of-cal-san-francisco-cty", "label": "Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.", "docketNumber": "16-466", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-466.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-466%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bristol-myers-squibb-co-v-superior-court-of-cal-san-francisco-cty" }, { "id": "scotus-16-529", "slug": "kokesh-v-sec", "label": "Kokesh v. SEC", "docketNumber": "16-529", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Kokesh v. SEC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-529.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-529%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/kokesh-v-sec" }, { "id": "scotus-16-5294", "slug": "mcwilliams-v-dunn", "label": "McWilliams v. Dunn", "docketNumber": "16-5294", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "McWilliams v. Dunn", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-5294.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-5294%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mcwilliams-v-dunn" }, { "id": "scotus-16-54", "slug": "esquivel-quintana-v-sessions", "label": "Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions", "docketNumber": "16-54", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-54.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-54%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/esquivel-quintana-v-sessions" }, { "id": "scotus-16-605", "slug": "town-of-chester-v-laroe-estates-inc", "label": "Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc.", "docketNumber": "16-605", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-605.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-605%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/town-of-chester-v-laroe-estates-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-16-6219", "slug": "davila-v-davis", "label": "Davila v. Davis", "docketNumber": "16-6219", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Davila v. Davis", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-6219.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-6219%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/davila-v-davis" }, { "id": "scotus-16-74", "slug": "advocate-health-care-network-v-stapleton", "label": "Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton", "docketNumber": "16-74", "term": "OT 2016", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2016.", "caseName": "Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-74.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-74%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/advocate-health-care-network-v-stapleton" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1439", "slug": "cyan-inc-v-beaver-county-employees-retirement-fund", "label": "Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund", "docketNumber": "15-1439", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1439.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1439%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/cyan-inc-v-beaver-county-employees-retirement-fund" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1485", "slug": "district-of-columbia-v-wesby", "label": "District of Columbia v. Wesby", "docketNumber": "15-1485", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "District of Columbia v. Wesby", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1485.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1485%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/district-of-columbia-v-wesby" }, { "id": "scotus-15-1509", "slug": "u-s-bank-nat-assn-v-village-at-lakeridge-llc", "label": "U. S. Bank Nat. Assn. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC", "docketNumber": "15-1509", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "U. S. Bank Nat. Assn. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/15-1509.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2215-1509%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/u-s-bank-nat-assn-v-village-at-lakeridge-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1011", "slug": "westerngeco-llc-v-ion-geophysical-corp", "label": "WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.", "docketNumber": "16-1011", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1011.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1011%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/westerngeco-llc-v-ion-geophysical-corp" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1027", "slug": "collins-v-virginia", "label": "Collins v. Virginia", "docketNumber": "16-1027", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Collins v. Virginia", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1027.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1027%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/collins-v-virginia" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1067", "slug": "murphy-v-smith", "label": "Murphy v. Smith", "docketNumber": "16-1067", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Murphy v. Smith", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1067.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1067%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/murphy-v-smith" }, { "id": "scotus-16-111", "slug": "masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-comm-n", "label": "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n", "docketNumber": "16-111", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-111.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-111%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-comm-n" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1140", "slug": "national-institute-of-family-and-life-advocates-v-becerra", "label": "National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra", "docketNumber": "16-1140", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1140.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1140%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/national-institute-of-family-and-life-advocates-v-becerra" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1144", "slug": "marinello-v-united-states", "label": "Marinello v. United States", "docketNumber": "16-1144", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Marinello v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1144.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1144%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/marinello-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1150", "slug": "hall-v-hall", "label": "Hall v. Hall", "docketNumber": "16-1150", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Hall v. Hall", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1150.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1150%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hall-v-hall" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1161", "slug": "gill-v-whitford", "label": "Gill v. Whitford", "docketNumber": "16-1161", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Gill v. Whitford", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1161.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1161%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/gill-v-whitford" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1215", "slug": "lamar-archer-cofrin-llp-v-appling", "label": "Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling", "docketNumber": "16-1215", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1215.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1215%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lamar-archer-cofrin-llp-v-appling" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1276", "slug": "digital-realty-trust-inc-v-somers", "label": "Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers", "docketNumber": "16-1276", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1276.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1276%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/digital-realty-trust-inc-v-somers" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1348", "slug": "currier-v-virginia", "label": "Currier v. Virginia", "docketNumber": "16-1348", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Currier v. Virginia", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1348.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1348%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/currier-v-virginia" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1362", "slug": "encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro-2", "label": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "docketNumber": "16-1362", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1362.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1362%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro-2" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1371", "slug": "byrd-v-united-states", "label": "Byrd v. United States", "docketNumber": "16-1371", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Byrd v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1371.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1371%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/byrd-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1432", "slug": "sveen-v-melin", "label": "Sveen v. Melin", "docketNumber": "16-1432", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Sveen v. Melin", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1432.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1432%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/sveen-v-melin" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1435", "slug": "minnesota-voters-alliance-v-mansky", "label": "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky", "docketNumber": "16-1435", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1435.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1435%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/minnesota-voters-alliance-v-mansky" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1454", "slug": "ohio-v-american-express-co", "label": "Ohio v. American Express Co.", "docketNumber": "16-1454", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Ohio v. American Express Co.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1454.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1454%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/ohio-v-american-express-co" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1466", "slug": "janus-v-state-county-and-municipal-employees", "label": "Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees", "docketNumber": "16-1466", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1466.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1466%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/janus-v-state-county-and-municipal-employees" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1495", "slug": "city-of-hays-v-vogt", "label": "City of Hays v. Vogt", "docketNumber": "16-1495", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "City of Hays v. Vogt", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1495.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1495%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/city-of-hays-v-vogt" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1519", "slug": "lagos-v-united-states", "label": "Lagos v. United States", "docketNumber": "16-1519", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Lagos v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1519.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1519%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lagos-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-16-285", "slug": "epic-systems-corp-v-lewis", "label": "Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis", "docketNumber": "16-285", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-285.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-285%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/epic-systems-corp-v-lewis" }, { "id": "scotus-16-299", "slug": "national-assn-of-mfrs-v-department-of-defense", "label": "National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense", "docketNumber": "16-299", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-299.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-299%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/national-assn-of-mfrs-v-department-of-defense" }, { "id": "scotus-16-402", "slug": "carpenter-v-united-states", "label": "Carpenter v. United States", "docketNumber": "16-402", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Carpenter v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-402.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-402%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/carpenter-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-16-424", "slug": "class-v-united-states", "label": "Class v. United States", "docketNumber": "16-424", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Class v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-424.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-424%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/class-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-16-460", "slug": "artis-v-district-of-columbia", "label": "Artis v. District of Columbia", "docketNumber": "16-460", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Artis v. District of Columbia", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-460.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-460%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/artis-v-district-of-columbia" }, { "id": "scotus-16-476", "slug": "christie-v-national-collegiate-athletic-assn", "label": "Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.", "docketNumber": "16-476", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-476.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-476%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/christie-v-national-collegiate-athletic-assn" }, { "id": "scotus-16-498", "slug": "patchak-v-zinke", "label": "Patchak v. Zinke", "docketNumber": "16-498", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Patchak v. Zinke", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-498.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-498%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/patchak-v-zinke" }, { "id": "scotus-16-499", "slug": "jesner-v-arab-bank-plc", "label": "Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC.", "docketNumber": "16-499", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-499.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-499%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/jesner-v-arab-bank-plc" }, { "id": "scotus-16-534", "slug": "rubin-v-islamic-republic-of-iran", "label": "Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran", "docketNumber": "16-534", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-534.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-534%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/rubin-v-islamic-republic-of-iran" }, { "id": "scotus-16-658", "slug": "hamer-v-neighborhood-housing-serv-of-chicago", "label": "Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Serv. of Chicago", "docketNumber": "16-658", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Serv. of Chicago", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-658.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-658%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hamer-v-neighborhood-housing-serv-of-chicago" }, { "id": "scotus-16-6795", "slug": "manuel-ayestas-v-davis", "label": "Manuel Ayestas v. Davis", "docketNumber": "16-6795", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Manuel Ayestas v. Davis", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-6795.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-6795%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/manuel-ayestas-v-davis" }, { "id": "scotus-16-6855", "slug": "wilson-v-sellers", "label": "Wilson v. Sellers", "docketNumber": "16-6855", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Wilson v. Sellers", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-6855.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-6855%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/wilson-v-sellers" }, { "id": "scotus-16-712", "slug": "oil-states-energy-services-llc-v-greene-s-energy-group-llc", "label": "Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC", "docketNumber": "16-712", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-712.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-712%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/oil-states-energy-services-llc-v-greene-s-energy-group-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-16-784", "slug": "merit-management-group-lp-v-fti-consulting-inc", "label": "Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.", "docketNumber": "16-784", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-784.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-784%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/merit-management-group-lp-v-fti-consulting-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-16-8255", "slug": "mccoy-v-louisiana", "label": "McCoy v. Louisiana", "docketNumber": "16-8255", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "McCoy v. Louisiana", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-8255.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-8255%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mccoy-v-louisiana" }, { "id": "scotus-16-9493", "slug": "rosales-mireles-v-united-states", "label": "Rosales-Mireles v. United States", "docketNumber": "16-9493", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Rosales-Mireles v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-9493.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-9493%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/rosales-mireles-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-16-961", "slug": "dalmazzi-v-united-states", "label": "Dalmazzi v. United States", "docketNumber": "16-961", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Dalmazzi v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-961.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-961%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/dalmazzi-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-16-969", "slug": "sas-institute-inc-v-matal", "label": "SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal", "docketNumber": "16-969", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-969.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-969%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/sas-institute-inc-v-matal" }, { "id": "scotus-16-980", "slug": "husted-v-a-philip-randolph-institute", "label": "Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute", "docketNumber": "16-980", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-980.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-980%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/husted-v-a-philip-randolph-institute" }, { "id": "scotus-17-155", "slug": "hughes-v-united-states", "label": "Hughes v. United States", "docketNumber": "17-155", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Hughes v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-155.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-155%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hughes-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-17-2", "slug": "united-states-v-microsoft-corp", "label": "United States v. Microsoft Corp.", "docketNumber": "17-2", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "United States v. Microsoft Corp.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-2.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-2%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-microsoft-corp" }, { "id": "scotus-17-21", "slug": "lozman-v-riviera-beach", "label": "Lozman v. Riviera Beach", "docketNumber": "17-21", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Lozman v. Riviera Beach", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-21.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-21%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lozman-v-riviera-beach" }, { "id": "scotus-17-269", "slug": "washington-v-united-states", "label": "Washington v. United States", "docketNumber": "17-269", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Washington v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-269.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-269%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/washington-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-17-312", "slug": "united-states-v-sanchez-gomez", "label": "United States v. Sanchez-Gomez", "docketNumber": "17-312", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "United States v. Sanchez-Gomez", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-312.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-312%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-sanchez-gomez" }, { "id": "scotus-17-333", "slug": "benisek-v-lamone", "label": "Benisek v. Lamone", "docketNumber": "17-333", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Benisek v. Lamone", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-333.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-333%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/benisek-v-lamone" }, { "id": "scotus-17-387", "slug": "upper-skagit-tribe-v-lundgren", "label": "Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren", "docketNumber": "17-387", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Upper Skagit Tribe v. Lundgren", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-387.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-387%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/upper-skagit-tribe-v-lundgren" }, { "id": "scotus-17-43", "slug": "dahda-v-united-states", "label": "Dahda v. United States", "docketNumber": "17-43", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Dahda v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-43.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-43%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/dahda-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-17-432", "slug": "china-agritech-inc-v-resh", "label": "China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh", "docketNumber": "17-432", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-432.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-432%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/china-agritech-inc-v-resh" }, { "id": "scotus-17-494", "slug": "south-dakota-v-wayfair-inc", "label": "South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.", "docketNumber": "17-494", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-494.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-494%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/south-dakota-v-wayfair-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-17-530", "slug": "wisconsin-central-ltd-v-united-states", "label": "Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States", "docketNumber": "17-530", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-530.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-530%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/wisconsin-central-ltd-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-17-5716", "slug": "koons-v-united-states", "label": "Koons v. United States", "docketNumber": "17-5716", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Koons v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-5716.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-5716%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/koons-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-17-965", "slug": "trump-v-hawaii", "label": "Trump v. Hawaii", "docketNumber": "17-965", "term": "OT 2017", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2017.", "caseName": "Trump v. Hawaii", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-965.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-965%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/trump-v-hawaii" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1094", "slug": "republic-of-sudan-v-harrison", "label": "Republic of Sudan v. Harrison", "docketNumber": "16-1094", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Republic of Sudan v. Harrison", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1094.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1094%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/republic-of-sudan-v-harrison" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1275", "slug": "virginia-uranium-inc-v-warren", "label": "Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren", "docketNumber": "16-1275", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1275.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1275%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/virginia-uranium-inc-v-warren" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1363", "slug": "nielsen-v-preap", "label": "Nielsen v. Preap", "docketNumber": "16-1363", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Nielsen v. Preap", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1363.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1363%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nielsen-v-preap" }, { "id": "scotus-16-1498", "slug": "washington-state-dept-of-licensing-v-cougar-den-inc", "label": "Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.", "docketNumber": "16-1498", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-1498.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2216-1498%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/washington-state-dept-of-licensing-v-cougar-den-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1011", "slug": "jam-v-international-finance-corp", "label": "Jam v. International Finance Corp.", "docketNumber": "17-1011", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Jam v. International Finance Corp.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1011.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1011%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/jam-v-international-finance-corp" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1026", "slug": "garza-v-idaho", "label": "Garza v. Idaho", "docketNumber": "17-1026", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Garza v. Idaho", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1026.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1026%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/garza-v-idaho" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1042", "slug": "bnsf-r-co-v-loos", "label": "BNSF R. Co. v. Loos", "docketNumber": "17-1042", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "BNSF R. Co. v. Loos", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1042.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1042%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bnsf-r-co-v-loos" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1077", "slug": "lorenzo-v-sec", "label": "Lorenzo v. SEC", "docketNumber": "17-1077", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Lorenzo v. SEC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1077.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1077%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lorenzo-v-sec" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1091", "slug": "timbs-v-indiana", "label": "Timbs v. Indiana", "docketNumber": "17-1091", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Timbs v. Indiana", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1091.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1091%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/timbs-v-indiana" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1094", "slug": "nutraceutical-corp-v-lambert", "label": "Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert", "docketNumber": "17-1094", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1094.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1094%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nutraceutical-corp-v-lambert" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1104", "slug": "air-liquid-systems-corp-v-devries", "label": "Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries", "docketNumber": "17-1104", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1104.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1104%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/air-liquid-systems-corp-v-devries" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1107", "slug": "carpenter-v-murphy", "label": "Carpenter v. Murphy", "docketNumber": "17-1107", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Carpenter v. Murphy", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1107.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1107%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/carpenter-v-murphy" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1174", "slug": "nieves-v-bartlett", "label": "Nieves v. Bartlett", "docketNumber": "17-1174", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Nieves v. Bartlett", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1174.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1174%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nieves-v-bartlett" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1184", "slug": "biestek-v-berryhill", "label": "Biestek v. Berryhill", "docketNumber": "17-1184", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Biestek v. Berryhill", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1184.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1184%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/biestek-v-berryhill" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1229", "slug": "helsinn-healthcare-s-a-v-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc", "label": "Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.", "docketNumber": "17-1229", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1229.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1229%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/helsinn-healthcare-s-a-v-teva-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1272", "slug": "henry-schein-inc-v-archer-white-sales-inc", "label": "Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.", "docketNumber": "17-1272", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1272.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1272%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/henry-schein-inc-v-archer-white-sales-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1299", "slug": "franchise-tax-bd-of-cal-v-hyatt", "label": "Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt", "docketNumber": "17-1299", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1299.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1299%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/franchise-tax-bd-of-cal-v-hyatt" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1307", "slug": "obduskey-v-mccarthy-holthus-llp", "label": "Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP.", "docketNumber": "17-1307", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1307.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1307%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/obduskey-v-mccarthy-holthus-llp" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1594", "slug": "return-mail-inc-v-postal-service", "label": "Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service", "docketNumber": "17-1594", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1594.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1594%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/return-mail-inc-v-postal-service" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1606", "slug": "smith-v-berryhill", "label": "Smith v. Berryhill", "docketNumber": "17-1606", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Smith v. Berryhill", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1606.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1606%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/smith-v-berryhill" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1657", "slug": "mission-product-holdings-inc-v-tempnology-llc", "label": "Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC", "docketNumber": "17-1657", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1657.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1657%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mission-product-holdings-inc-v-tempnology-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1672", "slug": "united-states-v-haymond", "label": "United States v. Haymond", "docketNumber": "17-1672", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "United States v. Haymond", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1672.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1672%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-haymond" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1702", "slug": "manhattan-community-access-corp-v-halleck", "label": "Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck", "docketNumber": "17-1702", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1702.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1702%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/manhattan-community-access-corp-v-halleck" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1705", "slug": "pdr-network-llc-v-carlton-harris-chiropractic-inc", "label": "PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc.", "docketNumber": "17-1705", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1705.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1705%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/pdr-network-llc-v-carlton-harris-chiropractic-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1717", "slug": "american-legion-v-american-humanist-assn", "label": "American Legion v. American Humanist Assn.", "docketNumber": "17-1717", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "American Legion v. American Humanist Assn.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1717.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1717%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/american-legion-v-american-humanist-assn" }, { "id": "scotus-17-204", "slug": "apple-inc-v-pepper", "label": "Apple Inc. v. Pepper", "docketNumber": "17-204", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Apple Inc. v. Pepper", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-204.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-204%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/apple-inc-v-pepper" }, { "id": "scotus-17-290", "slug": "merck-sharp-dohme-corp-v-albrecht", "label": "Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht", "docketNumber": "17-290", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-290.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-290%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/merck-sharp-dohme-corp-v-albrecht" }, { "id": "scotus-17-340", "slug": "new-prime-inc-v-oliveira", "label": "New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira", "docketNumber": "17-340", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-340.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-340%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/new-prime-inc-v-oliveira" }, { "id": "scotus-17-419", "slug": "dawson-v-steager", "label": "Dawson v. Steager", "docketNumber": "17-419", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Dawson v. Steager", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-419.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-419%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/dawson-v-steager" }, { "id": "scotus-17-532", "slug": "herrera-v-wyoming", "label": "Herrera v. Wyoming", "docketNumber": "17-532", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Herrera v. Wyoming", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-532.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-532%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/herrera-v-wyoming" }, { "id": "scotus-17-5554", "slug": "stokeling-v-united-states", "label": "Stokeling v. United States", "docketNumber": "17-5554", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Stokeling v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-5554.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-5554%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/stokeling-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-17-571", "slug": "fourth-estate-pub-benefit-corp-v-wall-street-com-llc", "label": "Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC", "docketNumber": "17-571", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-571.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-571%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fourth-estate-pub-benefit-corp-v-wall-street-com-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-17-587", "slug": "mount-lemmon-fire-dist-v-john-guido", "label": "Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. John Guido", "docketNumber": "17-587", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. John Guido", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-587.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-587%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mount-lemmon-fire-dist-v-john-guido" }, { "id": "scotus-17-6086", "slug": "gundy-v-united-states", "label": "Gundy v. United States", "docketNumber": "17-6086", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Gundy v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-6086.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-6086%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/gundy-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-17-646", "slug": "gamble-v-united-states", "label": "Gamble v. United States", "docketNumber": "17-646", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Gamble v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-646.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-646%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/gamble-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-17-647", "slug": "knick-v-township-of-scott", "label": "Knick v. Township of Scott", "docketNumber": "17-647", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Knick v. Township of Scott", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-647.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-647%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/knick-v-township-of-scott" }, { "id": "scotus-17-71", "slug": "weyerhaeuser-co-v-united-states-fish-and-wildlife-serv", "label": "Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv.", "docketNumber": "17-71", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-71.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-71%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/weyerhaeuser-co-v-united-states-fish-and-wildlife-serv" }, { "id": "scotus-17-7505", "slug": "madison-v-alabama", "label": "Madison v. Alabama", "docketNumber": "17-7505", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Madison v. Alabama", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-7505.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-7505%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/madison-v-alabama" }, { "id": "scotus-17-765", "slug": "united-states-v-stitt", "label": "United States v. Stitt", "docketNumber": "17-765", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "United States v. Stitt", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-765.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-765%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-stitt" }, { "id": "scotus-17-773", "slug": "culbertson-v-berryhill", "label": "Culbertson v. Berryhill", "docketNumber": "17-773", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Culbertson v. Berryhill", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-773.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-773%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/culbertson-v-berryhill" }, { "id": "scotus-17-778", "slug": "quarles-v-united-states", "label": "Quarles v. United States", "docketNumber": "17-778", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Quarles v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-778.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-778%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/quarles-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-17-8151", "slug": "bucklew-v-precythe", "label": "Bucklew v. Precythe", "docketNumber": "17-8151", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Bucklew v. Precythe", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-8151.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-8151%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bucklew-v-precythe" }, { "id": "scotus-17-8995", "slug": "mont-v-united-states", "label": "Mont v. United States", "docketNumber": "17-8995", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Mont v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-8995.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-8995%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mont-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-17-949", "slug": "sturgeon-v-frost", "label": "Sturgeon v. Frost", "docketNumber": "17-949", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Sturgeon v. Frost", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-949.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-949%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/sturgeon-v-frost" }, { "id": "scotus-17-9560", "slug": "rehaif-v-united-states", "label": "Rehaif v. United States", "docketNumber": "17-9560", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Rehaif v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-9560.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-9560%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/rehaif-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-17-9572", "slug": "flowers-v-mississippi", "label": "Flowers v. Mississippi", "docketNumber": "17-9572", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Flowers v. Mississippi", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-9572.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-9572%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/flowers-v-mississippi" }, { "id": "scotus-17-961", "slug": "frank-v-gaos", "label": "Frank v. Gaos", "docketNumber": "17-961", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Frank v. Gaos", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-961.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-961%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/frank-v-gaos" }, { "id": "scotus-17-988", "slug": "lamps-plus-inc-v-varela", "label": "Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela", "docketNumber": "17-988", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-988.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-988%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lamps-plus-inc-v-varela" }, { "id": "scotus-18-15", "slug": "kisor-v-wilkie", "label": "Kisor v. Wilkie", "docketNumber": "18-15", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Kisor v. Wilkie", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-15.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-15%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/kisor-v-wilkie" }, { "id": "scotus-18-266", "slug": "dutra-group-v-batterton", "label": "Dutra Group v. Batterton", "docketNumber": "18-266", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Dutra Group v. Batterton", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-266.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-266%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/dutra-group-v-batterton" }, { "id": "scotus-18-281", "slug": "virginia-house-of-delegates-v-bethune-hill", "label": "Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill", "docketNumber": "18-281", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-281.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-281%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/virginia-house-of-delegates-v-bethune-hill" }, { "id": "scotus-18-302", "slug": "iancu-v-brunetti", "label": "Iancu v. Brunetti", "docketNumber": "18-302", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Iancu v. Brunetti", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-302.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-302%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/iancu-v-brunetti" }, { "id": "scotus-18-315", "slug": "cochise-consultancy-inc-v-united-states-ex-rel-hunt", "label": "Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt", "docketNumber": "18-315", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-315.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-315%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/cochise-consultancy-inc-v-united-states-ex-rel-hunt" }, { "id": "scotus-18-389", "slug": "parker-drilling-management-service-ltd-v-newton", "label": "Parker Drilling Management Service, Ltd. v. Newton", "docketNumber": "18-389", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Parker Drilling Management Service, Ltd. v. Newton", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-389.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-389%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/parker-drilling-management-service-ltd-v-newton" }, { "id": "scotus-18-422", "slug": "rucho-v-common-cause", "label": "Rucho v. Common Cause", "docketNumber": "18-422", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Rucho v. Common Cause", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-422.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-422%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/rucho-v-common-cause" }, { "id": "scotus-18-431", "slug": "united-states-v-davis", "label": "United States v. Davis", "docketNumber": "18-431", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "United States v. Davis", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-431.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-431%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-davis" }, { "id": "scotus-18-457", "slug": "north-carolina-dept-of-revenue-v-kimberley-rice-kaestner-1992-family-trust", "label": "North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust", "docketNumber": "18-457", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "North Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-457.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-457%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/north-carolina-dept-of-revenue-v-kimberley-rice-kaestner-1992-family-trust" }, { "id": "scotus-18-459", "slug": "emulex-corp-v-varjabedian", "label": "Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian", "docketNumber": "18-459", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-459.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-459%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/emulex-corp-v-varjabedian" }, { "id": "scotus-18-481", "slug": "food-marketing-institute-v-argus-leader-media", "label": "Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media", "docketNumber": "18-481", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-481.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-481%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/food-marketing-institute-v-argus-leader-media" }, { "id": "scotus-18-485", "slug": "mcdonough-v-smith", "label": "McDonough v. Smith", "docketNumber": "18-485", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "McDonough v. Smith", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-485.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-485%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mcdonough-v-smith" }, { "id": "scotus-18-489", "slug": "taggart-v-lorenzen", "label": "Taggart v. Lorenzen", "docketNumber": "18-489", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Taggart v. Lorenzen", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-489.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-489%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/taggart-v-lorenzen" }, { "id": "scotus-18-525", "slug": "fort-bend-county-v-davis", "label": "Fort Bend County v. Davis", "docketNumber": "18-525", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Fort Bend County v. Davis", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-525.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-525%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fort-bend-county-v-davis" }, { "id": "scotus-18-6210", "slug": "mitchell-v-wisconsin", "label": "Mitchell v. Wisconsin", "docketNumber": "18-6210", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Mitchell v. Wisconsin", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-6210.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-6210%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mitchell-v-wisconsin" }, { "id": "scotus-18-726", "slug": "lamone-v-benisek", "label": "Lamone v. Benisek", "docketNumber": "18-726", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Lamone v. Benisek", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-726.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-726%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lamone-v-benisek" }, { "id": "scotus-18-96", "slug": "tennessee-wine-and-spirits-retailers-assn-v-blair", "label": "Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Blair", "docketNumber": "18-96", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Blair", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-96.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-96%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/tennessee-wine-and-spirits-retailers-assn-v-blair" }, { "id": "scotus-18-966", "slug": "department-of-commerce-v-new-york", "label": "Department of Commerce v. New York", "docketNumber": "18-966", "term": "OT 2018", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2018.", "caseName": "Department of Commerce v. New York", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-966.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-966%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/department-of-commerce-v-new-york" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1268", "slug": "opati-v-republic-of-sudan", "label": "Opati v. Republic of Sudan", "docketNumber": "17-1268", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Opati v. Republic of Sudan", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1268.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1268%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/opati-v-republic-of-sudan" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1498", "slug": "atlantic-richfield-co-v-christian", "label": "Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian", "docketNumber": "17-1498", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1498.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1498%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/atlantic-richfield-co-v-christian" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1618", "slug": "bostock-v-clayton-county", "label": "Bostock v. Clayton County", "docketNumber": "17-1618", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Bostock v. Clayton County", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1618.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1618%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bostock-v-clayton-county" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1678", "slug": "hern-ndez-v-mesa", "label": "Hern\u00e1ndez v. Mesa", "docketNumber": "17-1678", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Hern\u00e1ndez v. Mesa", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1678.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1678%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hern-ndez-v-mesa" }, { "id": "scotus-17-1712", "slug": "thole-v-u-s-bank-n-a", "label": "Thole v. U. S. Bank, N. A.", "docketNumber": "17-1712", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Thole v. U. S. Bank, N. A.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1712.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-1712%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/thole-v-u-s-bank-n-a" }, { "id": "scotus-17-834", "slug": "kansas-v-garcia", "label": "Kansas v. Garcia", "docketNumber": "17-834", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Kansas v. Garcia", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-834.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2217-834%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/kansas-v-garcia" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1023", "slug": "maine-community-health-options-v-united-states", "label": "Maine Community Health Options v. United States", "docketNumber": "18-1023", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Maine Community Health Options v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1023.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1023%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/maine-community-health-options-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1048", "slug": "ge-energy-power-conversion-france-sas-corp-v-outokumpu-stainless-usa-llc", "label": "GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC", "docketNumber": "18-1048", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1048.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1048%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/ge-energy-power-conversion-france-sas-corp-v-outokumpu-stainless-usa-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1059", "slug": "kelly-v-united-states", "label": "Kelly v. United States", "docketNumber": "18-1059", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Kelly v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1059.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1059%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/kelly-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-18-107", "slug": "r-g-g-r-harris-funeral-homes-inc-v-eeoc", "label": "R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC", "docketNumber": "18-107", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-107.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-107%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/r-g-g-r-harris-funeral-homes-inc-v-eeoc" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1086", "slug": "lucky-brand-dungarees-inc-v-marcel-fashions-group-inc", "label": "Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc.", "docketNumber": "18-1086", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1086.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1086%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lucky-brand-dungarees-inc-v-marcel-fashions-group-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1109", "slug": "mckinney-v-arizona", "label": "McKinney v. Arizona", "docketNumber": "18-1109", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "McKinney v. Arizona", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1109.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1109%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mckinney-v-arizona" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1116", "slug": "intel-corp-investment-policy-comm-v-sulyma", "label": "Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma", "docketNumber": "18-1116", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1116.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1116%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/intel-corp-investment-policy-comm-v-sulyma" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1150", "slug": "georgia-v-public-resource-org-inc", "label": "Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.", "docketNumber": "18-1150", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1150.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1150%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/georgia-v-public-resource-org-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1165", "slug": "retirement-plans-comm-of-ibm-v-jander", "label": "Retirement Plans Comm. of IBM v. Jander", "docketNumber": "18-1165", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Retirement Plans Comm. of IBM v. Jander", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1165.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1165%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/retirement-plans-comm-of-ibm-v-jander" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1171", "slug": "comcast-corp-v-national-ass-of-african-american-owned-media", "label": "Comcast Corp. v. National Ass. of African American-Owned Media", "docketNumber": "18-1171", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Comcast Corp. v. National Ass. of African American-Owned Media", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1171.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1171%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/comcast-corp-v-national-ass-of-african-american-owned-media" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1195", "slug": "espinoza-v-montana-dept-of-revenue", "label": "Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue", "docketNumber": "18-1195", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1195.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1195%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/espinoza-v-montana-dept-of-revenue" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1233", "slug": "romag-fasteners-inc-v-fossil-inc", "label": "Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.", "docketNumber": "18-1233", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1233.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1233%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/romag-fasteners-inc-v-fossil-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1269", "slug": "rodriguez-v-fdic", "label": "Rodriguez v. FDIC", "docketNumber": "18-1269", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Rodriguez v. FDIC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1269.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1269%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/rodriguez-v-fdic" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1323", "slug": "june-medical-services-l-l-c-v-russo", "label": "June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo", "docketNumber": "18-1323", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1323.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1323%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/june-medical-services-l-l-c-v-russo" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1334", "slug": "financial-oversight-and-management-bd-for-puerto-rico-v-aurelius-investment-llc", "label": "Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC", "docketNumber": "18-1334", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1334.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1334%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/financial-oversight-and-management-bd-for-puerto-rico-v-aurelius-investment-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1432", "slug": "nasrallah-v-barr", "label": "Nasrallah v. Barr", "docketNumber": "18-1432", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Nasrallah v. Barr", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1432.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1432%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nasrallah-v-barr" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1501", "slug": "liu-v-sec", "label": "Liu v. SEC", "docketNumber": "18-1501", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Liu v. SEC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1501.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1501%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/liu-v-sec" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1584", "slug": "united-states-forest-service-v-cowpasture-river-preservation-ass-n", "label": "United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass'n", "docketNumber": "18-1584", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Ass'n", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1584.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1584%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-forest-service-v-cowpasture-river-preservation-ass-n" }, { "id": "scotus-18-217", "slug": "mathena-v-malvo", "label": "Mathena v. Malvo", "docketNumber": "18-217", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Mathena v. Malvo", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-217.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-217%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mathena-v-malvo" }, { "id": "scotus-18-260", "slug": "county-of-maui-v-hawaii-wildlife-fund", "label": "County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund", "docketNumber": "18-260", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-260.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-260%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/county-of-maui-v-hawaii-wildlife-fund" }, { "id": "scotus-18-280", "slug": "new-york-state-rifle-pistol-assn-inc-v-city-of-new-york", "label": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York", "docketNumber": "18-280", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New York", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-280%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-assn-inc-v-city-of-new-york" }, { "id": "scotus-18-328", "slug": "rotkiske-v-klemm", "label": "Rotkiske v. Klemm", "docketNumber": "18-328", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Rotkiske v. Klemm", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-328.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-328%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/rotkiske-v-klemm" }, { "id": "scotus-18-556", "slug": "kansas-v-glover", "label": "Kansas v. Glover", "docketNumber": "18-556", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Kansas v. Glover", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-556.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-556%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/kansas-v-glover" }, { "id": "scotus-18-565", "slug": "citgo-asphalt-refining-co-v-frescati-shipping-co", "label": "CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co.", "docketNumber": "18-565", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-565.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-565%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/citgo-asphalt-refining-co-v-frescati-shipping-co" }, { "id": "scotus-18-587", "slug": "department-of-homeland-security-v-regents-of-univ-of-cal", "label": "Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.", "docketNumber": "18-587", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-587.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-587%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/department-of-homeland-security-v-regents-of-univ-of-cal" }, { "id": "scotus-18-5924", "slug": "ramos-v-louisiana", "label": "Ramos v. Louisiana", "docketNumber": "18-5924", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Ramos v. Louisiana", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-5924.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-5924%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/ramos-v-louisiana" }, { "id": "scotus-18-6135", "slug": "kahler-v-kansas", "label": "Kahler v. Kansas", "docketNumber": "18-6135", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Kahler v. Kansas", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-6135.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-6135%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/kahler-v-kansas" }, { "id": "scotus-18-6662", "slug": "shular-v-united-states", "label": "Shular v. United States", "docketNumber": "18-6662", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Shular v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-6662.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-6662%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/shular-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-18-6943", "slug": "banister-v-davis", "label": "Banister v. Davis", "docketNumber": "18-6943", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Banister v. Davis", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-6943.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-6943%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/banister-v-davis" }, { "id": "scotus-18-725", "slug": "barton-v-barr", "label": "Barton v. Barr", "docketNumber": "18-725", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Barton v. Barr", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-725.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-725%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/barton-v-barr" }, { "id": "scotus-18-7739", "slug": "holguin-hernandez-v-united-states", "label": "Holguin-Hernandez v. United States", "docketNumber": "18-7739", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Holguin-Hernandez v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-7739.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-7739%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/holguin-hernandez-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-18-776", "slug": "guerrero-lasprilla-v-barr", "label": "Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr", "docketNumber": "18-776", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-776.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-776%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/guerrero-lasprilla-v-barr" }, { "id": "scotus-18-801", "slug": "peter-v-nantkwest-inc", "label": "Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.", "docketNumber": "18-801", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Peter v. NantKwest, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-801.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-801%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/peter-v-nantkwest-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-18-8369", "slug": "lomax-v-ortiz-marquez", "label": "Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez", "docketNumber": "18-8369", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-8369.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-8369%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lomax-v-ortiz-marquez" }, { "id": "scotus-18-877", "slug": "allen-v-cooper", "label": "Allen v. Cooper", "docketNumber": "18-877", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Allen v. Cooper", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-877.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-877%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/allen-v-cooper" }, { "id": "scotus-18-882", "slug": "babb-v-wilkie", "label": "Babb v. Wilkie", "docketNumber": "18-882", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Babb v. Wilkie", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-882.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-882%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/babb-v-wilkie" }, { "id": "scotus-18-916", "slug": "thryv-inc-v-click-to-call-technologies-lp", "label": "Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP", "docketNumber": "18-916", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-916.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-916%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/thryv-inc-v-click-to-call-technologies-lp" }, { "id": "scotus-18-935", "slug": "monasky-v-taglieri", "label": "Monasky v. Taglieri", "docketNumber": "18-935", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Monasky v. Taglieri", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-935.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-935%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/monasky-v-taglieri" }, { "id": "scotus-18-938", "slug": "ritzen-group-inc-v-jackson-masonry-llc", "label": "Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC", "docketNumber": "18-938", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-938.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-938%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/ritzen-group-inc-v-jackson-masonry-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-18-9526", "slug": "mcgirt-v-oklahoma", "label": "McGirt v. Oklahoma", "docketNumber": "18-9526", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "McGirt v. Oklahoma", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-9526.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-9526%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mcgirt-v-oklahoma" }, { "id": "scotus-19-161", "slug": "department-of-homeland-security-v-thuraissigiam", "label": "Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam", "docketNumber": "19-161", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-161.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-161%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/department-of-homeland-security-v-thuraissigiam" }, { "id": "scotus-19-177", "slug": "agency-for-int-l-development-v-alliance-for-open-society-int-l-inc", "label": "Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, Inc.", "docketNumber": "19-177", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-177.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-177%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/agency-for-int-l-development-v-alliance-for-open-society-int-l-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-19-267", "slug": "our-lady-of-guadalupe-school-v-morrissey-berru", "label": "Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru", "docketNumber": "19-267", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-267.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-267%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/our-lady-of-guadalupe-school-v-morrissey-berru" }, { "id": "scotus-19-431", "slug": "little-sisters-of-the-poor-saints-peter-and-paul-home-v-pennsylvania", "label": "Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania", "docketNumber": "19-431", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-431.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-431%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/little-sisters-of-the-poor-saints-peter-and-paul-home-v-pennsylvania" }, { "id": "scotus-19-46", "slug": "patent-and-trademark-office-v-booking-com-b-v", "label": "Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.", "docketNumber": "19-46", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-46.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-46%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/patent-and-trademark-office-v-booking-com-b-v" }, { "id": "scotus-19-465", "slug": "chiafalo-v-washington", "label": "Chiafalo v. Washington", "docketNumber": "19-465", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Chiafalo v. Washington", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-465.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-465%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/chiafalo-v-washington" }, { "id": "scotus-19-518", "slug": "colorado-dept-of-state-v-baca", "label": "Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca", "docketNumber": "19-518", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-518.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-518%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/colorado-dept-of-state-v-baca" }, { "id": "scotus-19-631", "slug": "barr-v-american-assn-of-political-consultants-inc", "label": "Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc.", "docketNumber": "19-631", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-631.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-631%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/barr-v-american-assn-of-political-consultants-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-19-635", "slug": "trump-v-vance", "label": "Trump v. Vance", "docketNumber": "19-635", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Trump v. Vance", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-635.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-635%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/trump-v-vance" }, { "id": "scotus-19-67", "slug": "united-states-v-sineneng-smith", "label": "United States v. Sineneng-Smith", "docketNumber": "19-67", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "United States v. Sineneng-Smith", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-67.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-67%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-sineneng-smith" }, { "id": "scotus-19-7", "slug": "seila-law-llc-v-consumer-financial-protection-bureau", "label": "Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau", "docketNumber": "19-7", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-7.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-7%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/seila-law-llc-v-consumer-financial-protection-bureau" }, { "id": "scotus-19-715", "slug": "trump-v-mazars-usa-llp", "label": "Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP", "docketNumber": "19-715", "term": "OT 2019", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2019.", "caseName": "Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-715.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-715%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/trump-v-mazars-usa-llp" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1259", "slug": "jones-v-mississippi", "label": "Jones v. Mississippi", "docketNumber": "18-1259", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Jones v. Mississippi", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1259.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1259%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/jones-v-mississippi" }, { "id": "scotus-18-1447", "slug": "republic-of-hungary-v-simon", "label": "Republic of Hungary v. Simon", "docketNumber": "18-1447", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Republic of Hungary v. Simon", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-1447.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-1447%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/republic-of-hungary-v-simon" }, { "id": "scotus-18-540", "slug": "rutledge-v-pharmaceutical-care-management-assn", "label": "Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn.", "docketNumber": "18-540", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-540.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-540%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/rutledge-v-pharmaceutical-care-management-assn" }, { "id": "scotus-18-956", "slug": "google-llc-v-oracle-america-inc", "label": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.", "docketNumber": "18-956", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-956.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2218-956%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/google-llc-v-oracle-america-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-19-1039", "slug": "penneast-pipeline-co-v-new-jersey", "label": "Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey", "docketNumber": "19-1039", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Penneast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1039.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-1039%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/penneast-pipeline-co-v-new-jersey" }, { "id": "scotus-19-108", "slug": "united-states-v-briggs", "label": "United States v. Briggs", "docketNumber": "19-108", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "United States v. Briggs", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-108.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-108%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-briggs" }, { "id": "scotus-19-1155", "slug": "wilkinson-v-ming-dai", "label": "Wilkinson v. Ming Dai", "docketNumber": "19-1155", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Wilkinson v. Ming Dai", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1155.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-1155%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/wilkinson-v-ming-dai" }, { "id": "scotus-19-1189", "slug": "bp-p-l-c-v-mayor-and-city-council-of-baltimore", "label": "BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore", "docketNumber": "19-1189", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1189.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-1189%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bp-p-l-c-v-mayor-and-city-council-of-baltimore" }, { "id": "scotus-19-123", "slug": "fulton-v-philadelphia", "label": "Fulton v. Philadelphia", "docketNumber": "19-123", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Fulton v. Philadelphia", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-123.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-123%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fulton-v-philadelphia" }, { "id": "scotus-19-1231", "slug": "fcc-v-prometheus-radio-project", "label": "FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project", "docketNumber": "19-1231", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1231.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-1231%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fcc-v-prometheus-radio-project" }, { "id": "scotus-19-1257", "slug": "brnovich-v-democratic-national-committee", "label": "Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee", "docketNumber": "19-1257", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1257.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-1257%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/brnovich-v-democratic-national-committee" }, { "id": "scotus-19-1414", "slug": "united-states-v-cooley", "label": "United States v. Cooley", "docketNumber": "19-1414", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "United States v. Cooley", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1414.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-1414%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-cooley" }, { "id": "scotus-19-1434", "slug": "united-states-v-arthrex-inc", "label": "United States v. Arthrex, Inc.", "docketNumber": "19-1434", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "United States v. Arthrex, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1434.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-1434%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-arthrex-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-19-1442", "slug": "carr-v-saul", "label": "Carr v. Saul", "docketNumber": "19-1442", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Carr v. Saul", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1442.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-1442%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/carr-v-saul" }, { "id": "scotus-19-199", "slug": "salinas-v-railroad-retirement-bd", "label": "Salinas v. Railroad Retirement Bd.", "docketNumber": "19-199", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Salinas v. Railroad Retirement Bd.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-199.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-199%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/salinas-v-railroad-retirement-bd" }, { "id": "scotus-19-251", "slug": "americans-for-prosperity-foundation-v-bonta", "label": "Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta", "docketNumber": "19-251", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-251.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-251%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/americans-for-prosperity-foundation-v-bonta" }, { "id": "scotus-19-292", "slug": "torres-v-madrid", "label": "Torres v. Madrid", "docketNumber": "19-292", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Torres v. Madrid", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-292.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-292%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/torres-v-madrid" }, { "id": "scotus-19-309", "slug": "carney-v-adams", "label": "Carney v. Adams", "docketNumber": "19-309", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Carney v. Adams", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-309.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-309%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/carney-v-adams" }, { "id": "scotus-19-351", "slug": "federal-republic-of-germany-v-philipp", "label": "Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp", "docketNumber": "19-351", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-351.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-351%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/federal-republic-of-germany-v-philipp" }, { "id": "scotus-19-357", "slug": "chicago-v-fulton", "label": "Chicago v. Fulton", "docketNumber": "19-357", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Chicago v. Fulton", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-357.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-357%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/chicago-v-fulton" }, { "id": "scotus-19-368", "slug": "ford-motor-co-v-montana-eighth-judicial-dist-court", "label": "Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court", "docketNumber": "19-368", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-368.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-368%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/ford-motor-co-v-montana-eighth-judicial-dist-court" }, { "id": "scotus-19-416", "slug": "nestl-usa-inc-v-doe", "label": "Nestl\u00e9 USA, Inc. v. Doe", "docketNumber": "19-416", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Nestl\u00e9 USA, Inc. v. Doe", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-416.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-416%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nestl-usa-inc-v-doe" }, { "id": "scotus-19-422", "slug": "collins-v-mnuchin", "label": "Collins v. Mnuchin", "docketNumber": "19-422", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Collins v. Mnuchin", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-422.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-422%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/collins-v-mnuchin" }, { "id": "scotus-19-438", "slug": "pereida-v-barr", "label": "Pereida v. Barr", "docketNumber": "19-438", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Pereida v. Barr", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-438.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-438%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/pereida-v-barr" }, { "id": "scotus-19-508", "slug": "amg-capital-management-llc-v-ftc", "label": "AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC", "docketNumber": "19-508", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-508.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-508%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/amg-capital-management-llc-v-ftc" }, { "id": "scotus-19-511", "slug": "facebook-inc-v-duguid", "label": "Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid", "docketNumber": "19-511", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-511.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-511%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/facebook-inc-v-duguid" }, { "id": "scotus-19-5410", "slug": "borden-v-united-states", "label": "Borden v. United States", "docketNumber": "19-5410", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Borden v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-5410.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-5410%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/borden-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-19-546", "slug": "brownback-v-king", "label": "Brownback v. King", "docketNumber": "19-546", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Brownback v. King", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-546.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-546%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/brownback-v-king" }, { "id": "scotus-19-547", "slug": "united-states-fish-and-wildlife-serv-v-sierra-club-inc", "label": "United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc.", "docketNumber": "19-547", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-547.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-547%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-fish-and-wildlife-serv-v-sierra-club-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-19-5807", "slug": "edwards-v-vannoy", "label": "Edwards v. Vannoy", "docketNumber": "19-5807", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Edwards v. Vannoy", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-5807.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-5807%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/edwards-v-vannoy" }, { "id": "scotus-19-71", "slug": "tanzin-v-tanvir", "label": "Tanzin v. Tanvir", "docketNumber": "19-71", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Tanzin v. Tanvir", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-71.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-71%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/tanzin-v-tanvir" }, { "id": "scotus-19-783", "slug": "van-buren-v-united-states", "label": "Van Buren v. United States", "docketNumber": "19-783", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Van Buren v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-783.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-783%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/van-buren-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-19-840", "slug": "california-v-texas", "label": "California v. Texas", "docketNumber": "19-840", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "California v. Texas", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-840.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-840%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/california-v-texas" }, { "id": "scotus-19-863", "slug": "niz-chavez-v-barr", "label": "Niz-Chavez v. Barr", "docketNumber": "19-863", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Niz-Chavez v. Barr", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-863.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-863%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/niz-chavez-v-barr" }, { "id": "scotus-19-8709", "slug": "greer-v-united-states", "label": "Greer v. United States", "docketNumber": "19-8709", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Greer v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-8709.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-8709%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/greer-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-19-897", "slug": "pham-v-guzman-chavez", "label": "Pham v. Guzman Chavez", "docketNumber": "19-897", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Pham v. Guzman Chavez", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-897.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-897%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/pham-v-guzman-chavez" }, { "id": "scotus-19-930", "slug": "cic-servs-llc-v-irs", "label": "CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS", "docketNumber": "19-930", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-930.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-930%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/cic-servs-llc-v-irs" }, { "id": "scotus-19-963", "slug": "harry-schein-inc-v-archer-white-sales-inc", "label": "Harry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.", "docketNumber": "19-963", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Harry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-963.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-963%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/harry-schein-inc-v-archer-white-sales-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-19-968", "slug": "uzuegbunam-v-preczewski", "label": "Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski", "docketNumber": "19-968", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-968.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-968%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/uzuegbunam-v-preczewski" }, { "id": "scotus-20-107", "slug": "cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid", "label": "Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid", "docketNumber": "20-107", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-107.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-107%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/cedar-point-nursery-v-hassid" }, { "id": "scotus-20-157", "slug": "caniglia-v-strom", "label": "Caniglia v. Strom", "docketNumber": "20-157", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Caniglia v. Strom", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-157.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-157%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/caniglia-v-strom" }, { "id": "scotus-20-18", "slug": "lange-v-california", "label": "Lange v. California", "docketNumber": "20-18", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Lange v. California", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-18.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-18%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lange-v-california" }, { "id": "scotus-20-222", "slug": "goldman-sachs-group-inc-v-arkansas-teacher-retirement-system", "label": "Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System", "docketNumber": "20-222", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-222.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-222%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/goldman-sachs-group-inc-v-arkansas-teacher-retirement-system" }, { "id": "scotus-20-255", "slug": "mahanoy-area-school-dist-v-b-l", "label": "Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L.", "docketNumber": "20-255", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-255.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-255%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mahanoy-area-school-dist-v-b-l" }, { "id": "scotus-20-297", "slug": "transunion-llc-v-ramirez", "label": "TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez", "docketNumber": "20-297", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-297.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-297%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/transunion-llc-v-ramirez" }, { "id": "scotus-20-315", "slug": "santos-sanchez-v-mayorkas", "label": "Santos Sanchez v. Mayorkas", "docketNumber": "20-315", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Santos Sanchez v. Mayorkas", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-315.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-315%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/santos-sanchez-v-mayorkas" }, { "id": "scotus-20-334", "slug": "san-antonio-v-hotels-com-l-p", "label": "San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L.P.", "docketNumber": "20-334", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L.P.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-334.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-334%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/san-antonio-v-hotels-com-l-p" }, { "id": "scotus-20-366", "slug": "trump-v-new-york", "label": "Trump v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-366", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Trump v. New York", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-366.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-366%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/trump-v-new-york" }, { "id": "scotus-20-382", "slug": "guam-v-united-states", "label": "Guam v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-382", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Guam v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-382.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-382%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/guam-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-20-437", "slug": "united-states-v-palomar-santiago", "label": "United States v. Palomar-Santiago", "docketNumber": "20-437", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "United States v. Palomar-Santiago", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-437.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-437%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-palomar-santiago" }, { "id": "scotus-20-440", "slug": "minerva-surgical-inc-v-hologic-inc", "label": "Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.", "docketNumber": "20-440", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-440.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-440%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/minerva-surgical-inc-v-hologic-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-20-444", "slug": "united-states-v-gary", "label": "United States v. Gary", "docketNumber": "20-444", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "United States v. Gary", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-444.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-444%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-gary" }, { "id": "scotus-20-472", "slug": "hollyfrontier-cheyenne-refining-llc-v-renewable-fuels-assn", "label": "Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn.", "docketNumber": "20-472", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-472.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-472%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hollyfrontier-cheyenne-refining-llc-v-renewable-fuels-assn" }, { "id": "scotus-20-512", "slug": "national-collegiate-athletic-assn-v-alston", "label": "National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston", "docketNumber": "20-512", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-512.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-512%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/national-collegiate-athletic-assn-v-alston" }, { "id": "scotus-20-543", "slug": "yellen-v-confederated-tribes-of-chehalis-reservation", "label": "Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation", "docketNumber": "20-543", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-543.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-543%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/yellen-v-confederated-tribes-of-chehalis-reservation" }, { "id": "scotus-20-5904", "slug": "terry-v-united-states", "label": "Terry v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5904", "term": "OT 2020", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2020.", "caseName": "Terry v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-5904.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-5904%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/terry-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-19-1392", "slug": "dobbs-v-jackson", "label": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "docketNumber": "19-1392", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [ "abortion", "due-process", "federalism" ], "whyTracked": "Overturned Roe and Casey; returned abortion regulation to the states.", "caseName": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63408725, "dateArgued": "2021-12-01", "dateFiled": "2022-06-24", "citations": [ "597 U.S. 215", "213 L. Ed. 2d 545", "142 S. Ct. 2228" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/dobbs-v-jackson.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6353492, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1392.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-1392%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6481357, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6481357, "caseName": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "dateFiled": "2022-06-24", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 215", "213 L. Ed. 2d 545", "142 S. Ct. 2228" ], "citeCount": 496, "judge": "Samuel Alito", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6481357/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6353492, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\n DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE\n MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v.\n JACKSON WOMEN\u2019S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL.\n\nCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\n THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n No. 19\u20131392. Argued December 1, 2021\u2014Decided June 24, 2022\nMississippi\u2019s Gestational Age Act provides that \u201c[e]xcept in a medical\n emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall\n not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an\n unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn hu-\n man being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.\u201d\n Miss. Code Ann. \u00a741\u201341\u2013191. Respondents\u2014Jackson Women\u2019s Health\n Organization, an abortion clinic, and one of its\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78761, "caseName": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health", "dateArgued": "2021-12-01", "durationSeconds": 6783, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/19-1392.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78761/thomas-e-dobbs-state-health-officer-of-the-mississippi-department-of/", "snippet": "We will hear argument this morning in Case 19-1392, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. General Stewart. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey haunt our country. They have no basis in the Constitution. They have no home in our history or traditions. They've damaged the democratic process. They've poisoned the law. They've choked off\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/dobbs-v-jackson", "holdingAuthor": "Samuel A. Alito Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-19-1401", "slug": "hughes-v-northwestern-university", "label": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "docketNumber": "19-1401", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 62622669, "dateArgued": "2021-12-06", "dateFiled": "2022-01-24", "citations": [ "595 U.S. 170", "211 L. Ed. 2d 558", "142 S. Ct. 737" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/hughes-v-northwestern-university.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6111798, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1401.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-1401%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6244621, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6244621, "caseName": "Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.", "dateFiled": "2022-01-24", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 170", "211 L. Ed. 2d 558", "142 S. Ct. 737" ], "citeCount": 146, "judge": "Sonia Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6244621/hughes-v-northwestern-univ/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1401_m6io.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6111798, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1401_m6io.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78801, "caseName": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "dateArgued": "2021-12-06", "durationSeconds": 5449, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/19-1401.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78801/april-hughes-et-al-petitioners-v-northwestern-university-et-al/", "snippet": "Wasting beneficiary's money is imprudent. Congress enacted ERISA to impose a duty Judge Friendly famously said was the highest known to the law, a fiduciary duty. Under ERISA section 1104, a fiduciary managing assets in a retirement plan must act with prudence. ERISA fiduciaries must act with prudence, solely in the interest of beneficiaries, incur only reasonable expenses, and act with care, ski\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/hughes-v-northwestern-university", "holdingAuthor": "Sonia Sotomayor" }, { "id": "scotus-19-896", "slug": "johnson-v-arteaga-martinez", "label": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "docketNumber": "19-896", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63379472, "dateArgued": "2022-01-11", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 573", "142 S. Ct. 1827" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/johnson-v-arteaga-martinez.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6349226, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-896.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2219-896%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6477115, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6477115, "caseName": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 573", "142 S. Ct. 1827" ], "citeCount": 196, "judge": "Sonia Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6477115/johnson-v-arteaga-martinez/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6349226, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 79315, "caseName": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "dateArgued": "2022-01-11", "durationSeconds": 3874, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/19-896.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/79315/tae-d-johnson-acting-director-of-us-immigration-and-customs/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first in Case 19-896, Johnson v. Arteaga. Mr. Raynor? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Section 1231A.6 states that certain categories of noncitizens, including inadmissible noncitizens like respondent here, quote, may be detained beyond the removal period, end quote. The question presented in this case is whether that language requires that noncitizens detained\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/johnson-v-arteaga-martinez", "holdingAuthor": "Sonia Sotomayor" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1009", "slug": "shinn-v-ramirez", "label": "Shinn v. Ramirez", "docketNumber": "20-1009", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63329487, "dateArgued": "2021-12-08", "dateFiled": "2022-05-23", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 366" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/shinn-v-ramirez.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6343024, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1009.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1009%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6470913, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6470913, "caseName": "Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez", "dateFiled": "2022-05-23", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 366" ], "citeCount": 468, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6470913/shinn-v-martinez-ramirez/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1009_19m2.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6343024, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1009_19m2.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78943, "caseName": "Shinn v. Ramirez", "dateArgued": "2021-12-08", "durationSeconds": 3245, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1009.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78943/david-shinn-director-arizona-department-of-corrections-rehabilitation/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in case 2109, Shinn v. Ramirez. Mr. Royston. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the issue presented in this case is fundamentally a question of statutory interpretation. When Congress enacted 2254E2 as part of AEDPA, it created a high bar for federal evidentiary hearings on habeas claims involving state convictions. It codified the first part of the Keeney te\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/shinn-v-ramirez", "holdingAuthor": "Clarence Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1029", "slug": "austin-v-reagan-national-advertising", "label": "Austin v. Reagan National Advertising", "docketNumber": "20-1029", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63252811, "dateArgued": "2021-11-10", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 61", "142 S. Ct. 1464" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/austin-v-reagan-national-advertising.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6333582, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1029.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1029%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6461471, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6461471, "caseName": "City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 61", "142 S. Ct. 1464" ], "citeCount": 147, "judge": "Sonia Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6461471/city-of-austin-v-reagan-national-advertising-of-austin-llc/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1029_i42k.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6333582, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1029_i42k.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78463, "caseName": "Austin v. Reagan National Advertising", "dateArgued": "2021-11-10", "durationSeconds": 5847, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1029.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78463/city-of-austin-texas-petitioner-v-reagan-national-advertising-of-austin/", "snippet": "We will hear argument this morning in Case 20-1029, Austin, Texas, v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin. Mr. Dreeben. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. This case involves a fundamental question about the meaning of content-based regulation under the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit interpreted this Court's decision in Reed to mean that any time that an officer must\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/austin-v-reagan-national-advertising", "holdingAuthor": "Sonia Sotomayor" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1034", "slug": "golan-v-saada", "label": "Golan v. Saada", "docketNumber": "20-1034", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Golan v. Saada", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63385706, "dateArgued": "2022-03-22", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 666", "142 S. Ct. 1880" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/golan-v-saada.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6349965, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1034.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1034%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6477854, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6477854, "caseName": "Golan v. Saada", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 666", "142 S. Ct. 1880" ], "citeCount": 92, "judge": "Sonia Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6477854/golan-v-saada/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6349965, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80512, "caseName": "Golan v. Saada", "dateArgued": "2022-03-22", "durationSeconds": 4794, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1034.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80512/narkis-aliza-golan-petitioner-v-isacco-jacky-saada/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument this morning in Case 20-1034, Golan v. Saada. Ms. King? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Hague Convention provides that a court is not bound to return a child once the grave risk exception is met. The District Court here, after finding grave risk to this child, was operating under an incorrect rule of law. That is, the Second Circuit's requirement that court\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/golan-v-saada", "holdingAuthor": "Sonia Sotomayor" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1088", "slug": "carson-v-makin", "label": "Carson v. Makin", "docketNumber": "20-1088", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Carson v. Makin", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63397664, "dateArgued": "2021-12-08", "dateFiled": "2022-06-21", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 767", "142 S. Ct. 1987", "213 L. Ed. 2d 286" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/carson-v-makin.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6351409, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1088.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1088%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6479298, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6479298, "caseName": "Carson v. Makin", "dateFiled": "2022-06-21", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 767", "142 S. Ct. 1987", "213 L. Ed. 2d 286" ], "citeCount": 55, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6479298/carson-v-makin/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6351409, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78944, "caseName": "Carson v. Makin", "dateArgued": "2021-12-08", "durationSeconds": 6902, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1088.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78944/david-carson-as-parent-and-next-friend-of-o-c-et-al-petitioners-v-a/", "snippet": "Mayne's sectarian exclusion discriminates based on religion. Like all discrimination based on religion, it should be subjected to strict scrutiny and held unconstitutional unless Mayne can show that it is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. Mayne cannot make such a showing, and the First Circuit never held that it could. Instead, the First Circuit held that there are two kinds\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/carson-v-makin", "holdingAuthor": "John G. Roberts Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-20-1114", "slug": "american-hospital-assn-v-becerra", "label": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "docketNumber": "20-1114", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63385993, "dateArgued": "2021-11-30", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 724" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/american-hospital-assn-v-becerra.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6350019, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1713, "authorName": "Brett M. Kavanaugh" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1114.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1114%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6477908, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6477908, "caseName": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 724" ], "citeCount": 22, "judge": "Brett Kavanaugh", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6477908/american-hospital-assn-v-becerra/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6350019, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1713, "authorName": "Brett M. Kavanaugh", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78749, "caseName": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "dateArgued": "2021-11-30", "durationSeconds": 4389, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1114.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78749/american-hospital-association-et-al-petitioners-v-xavier-becerra/", "snippet": "Mr. Verrilli. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Congress enacted the statute at issue, which I will refer to as Paragraph 14, to curb the discretion HHS normally enjoys when it sets Medicare rates for outpatient hospital services. For the drugs covered by the statute, Paragraph 14 directs that the agency may set rates based on acquisition costs, and may not set rates based on acquis\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/american-hospital-assn-v-becerra", "holdingAuthor": "Brett M. Kavanaugh" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1143", "slug": "badgerow-v-walters", "label": "Badgerow v. Walters", "docketNumber": "20-1143", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Badgerow v. Walters", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63202218, "dateArgued": "2021-11-02", "dateFiled": "2022-03-31", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 1", "142 S. Ct. 1310" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/badgerow-v-walters.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6328531, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1143.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1143%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6456420, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6456420, "caseName": "Badgerow v. Walters", "dateFiled": "2022-03-31", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 1", "142 S. Ct. 1310" ], "citeCount": 302, "judge": "Elana Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6456420/badgerow-v-walters/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1143_m6hn.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6328531, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1143_m6hn.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78394, "caseName": "Badgerow v. Walters", "dateArgued": "2021-11-02", "durationSeconds": 3105, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1143.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78394/denise-a-badgerow-petitioner-v-greg-walters-et-al/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case 20-1143, Badgerow v. Walters. Mr. Geiser. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The question presented is whether Vaden's look-through approach applies to applications to enforce or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The answers controlled by the FAA's plaintext and the competing statutory argum\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/badgerow-v-walters", "holdingAuthor": "Elena Kagan" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1263", "slug": "gallardo-v-marstiller", "label": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "docketNumber": "20-1263", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63362548, "dateArgued": "2022-01-10", "dateFiled": "2022-06-06", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 420", "142 S. Ct. 1751" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/gallardo-v-marstiller.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6347225, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1263.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1263%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6475114, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6478769, "caseName": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "dateFiled": "2022-06-17", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6478769/gallardo-v-marstiller/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1263diff_868c.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6350880, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1263diff_868c.pdf", "snippet": " 6/17/2022 12:11:51 PM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 20-1263.pdf 20-1263_new.pdf\n versus\n 31 pages (188 KB) 31 page", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6475114, "caseName": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "dateFiled": "2022-06-06", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 420", "142 S. Ct. 1751" ], "citeCount": 25, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6475114/gallardo-v-marstiller/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1263_g2bh.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6347225, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1263_g2bh.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 79290, "caseName": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "dateArgued": "2022-01-10", "durationSeconds": 6326, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1263.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/79290/gianinna-gallardo-an-incapacitated-person-by-and-through-her-parents-and/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument this morning in Case 20-1263, Gallardo v. Marstiller. Mr. Gowdy? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Medicaid provides a benefit to persons needing medical care. It is not a loan to be repaid later. The anti-lien and anti-recovery provisions, part of the original 1965 Medicaid law, reflect this policy by prohibiting states from taking any property belonging to a be\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/gallardo-v-marstiller", "holdingAuthor": "Clarence Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1312", "slug": "becerra-v-empire-health-foundation", "label": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation", "docketNumber": "20-1312", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, For Valley Hospital Medical Center", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63408726, "dateArgued": "2021-11-29", "dateFiled": "2022-06-24", "citations": [ "597 U.S. 424", "213 L. Ed. 2d 685", "142 S. Ct. 2354" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/becerra-v-empire-health-foundation.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6353493, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1312.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1312%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6481358, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6481358, "caseName": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, For Valley Hospital Medical Center", "dateFiled": "2022-06-24", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 424", "213 L. Ed. 2d 685", "142 S. Ct. 2354" ], "citeCount": 29, "judge": "Elana Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6481358/becerra-v-empire-health-foundation-for-valley-hospital-medical-center/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1312_j42l.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6353493, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1312_j42l.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78734, "caseName": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation", "dateArgued": "2021-11-29", "durationSeconds": 4159, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1312.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78734/xavier-becerra-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-petitioner-v/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument this morning in Case 2013-12, Becerra v. Empire Health Fund. Mr. Bond. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Medicare fraction directs HHS to count patient days of patients who, for such days, were entitled to benefits under Part A of Medicare. The question here is which patients are entitled to Part A benefits. Section 426 states that every individual who satisf\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/becerra-v-empire-health-foundation", "holdingAuthor": "Elena Kagan" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1410", "slug": "ruan-v-united-states", "label": "Ruan v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1410", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Xiulu Ruan v. United States", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63549790, "dateArgued": "2022-03-01", "dateFiled": "2022-06-27", "citations": [ "597 U.S. 450", "142 S. Ct. 2370", "213 L. Ed. 2d 706" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/ruan-v-united-states.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6495361, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1410.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1410%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6619003, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6619003, "caseName": "Xiulu Ruan v. United States", "dateFiled": "2022-06-27", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 450", "142 S. Ct. 2370", "213 L. Ed. 2d 706" ], "citeCount": 166, "judge": "Stephen Breyer", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6619003/xiulu-ruan-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6495361, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80090, "caseName": "Ruan v. United States", "dateArgued": "2022-03-01", "durationSeconds": 5723, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1410.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80090/xiulu-ruan-petitioner-v-united-states/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 2014-10, Ruan v. United States and the Consolidated Case. Mr. Robbins? Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Dr. Xu Lu Ren's jury was instructed that it could convict him of federal narcotics offenses if he prescribed, quote, outside of the usual course of professional medical practice. The Eleventh Circuit sustained that instruc\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/ruan-v-united-states", "holdingAuthor": "Stephen Breyer" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1459", "slug": "united-states-v-taylor", "label": "United States v. Taylor", "docketNumber": "20-1459", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "United States v. Taylor", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63397661, "dateArgued": "2021-12-07", "dateFiled": "2022-06-21", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 845", "142 S. Ct. 2015", "213 L. Ed. 2d 349" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/united-states-v-taylor.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6351406, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1459.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1459%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6479295, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6479295, "caseName": "United States v. Taylor", "dateFiled": "2022-06-21", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 845", "142 S. Ct. 2015", "213 L. Ed. 2d 349" ], "citeCount": 662, "judge": "Neil Gorsuch", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6479295/united-states-v-taylor/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6351406, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78869, "caseName": "United States v. Taylor", "dateArgued": "2021-12-07", "durationSeconds": 5187, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1459.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78869/united-states-petitioner-v-justin-eugene-taylor/", "snippet": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, in Section 924C, Congress sought to punish some of the most dangerous federal criminals, felons who used guns during crimes of violence. That includes respondents. Indeed, it is undisputed that had respondent or his co-actor remembered to take Martin They would have completed their Hobbs Act robbery and thereby committed a crime of violence. That ov\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-taylor", "holdingAuthor": "Neil M. Gorsuch" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1472", "slug": "boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue", "label": "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", "docketNumber": "20-1472", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Boechler v. Commissioner", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63252814, "dateArgued": "2022-01-12", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 199" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6333585, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1472.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1472%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6461474, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6461474, "caseName": "Boechler v. Commissioner", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 199" ], "citeCount": 71, "judge": "Amy Coney Barrett", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6461474/boechler-v-commissioner/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1472_6j37.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6333585, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1472_6j37.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 79340, "caseName": "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", "dateArgued": "2022-01-12", "durationSeconds": 4032, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1472.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/79340/boechler-pc-petitioner-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument this morning in Case 20-1472, Boechler v. the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Ms. Sherry? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, this Court has repeatedly held that time limits are rarely jurisdictional and that if Congress wants to make them jurisdictional, it has to speak clearly. Section 6330d1 does not have the needed clarity. The first clause reads like an ordi\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue", "holdingAuthor": "Amy Coney Barrett" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1530", "slug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "label": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [ "administrative-law", "environment", "major-questions" ], "whyTracked": "Major-questions doctrine cabining EPA climate regulation authority.", "caseName": "West Virginia v. EPA", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63560747, "dateArgued": "2022-02-28", "dateFiled": "2022-06-30", "citations": [ "597 U.S. 697" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/west-virginia-v-epa.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6496703, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1530.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1530%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6620345, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6623243, "caseName": "West Virginia v. EPA", "dateFiled": "2022-07-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6623243/west-virginia-v-epa/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530diff_dafi.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6499601, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530diff_dafi.pdf", "snippet": " 7/13/2022 10:29:37 AM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n old_20-1530.pdf 20-1530.pdf\n versus\n 89 pages (424 KB) 89 pages (", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6620345, "caseName": "West Virginia v. EPA", "dateFiled": "2022-06-30", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 697" ], "citeCount": 125, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6620345/west-virginia-v-epa/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6496703, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detr", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\n WEST VIRGINIA ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL\n PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL.\n\nCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\n THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n No. 20\u20131530. Argued February 28, 2022\u2014Decided June 30, 2022*\nIn 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the\n Clean Power Plan rule, which addressed carbon dioxide emissions\n from existing coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants. For authority,\n the Agency cited Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which, although\n known as the New Source Performance Standards program, also au-\n thorizes regulation of certain pollutants from existing sources under\n Section 111(d). 42 U. S. C. \u00a77411 (d). Prior to the Clean Power Plan,\n EPA had used Section 111(d) only a\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 6623244, "caseName": "West Virginia v. EPA", "dateFiled": "2022-06-30", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 697" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6623244/west-virginia-v-epa/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_new_l537.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6499602, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_new_l537.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detr", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80073, "caseName": "West Virginia v. EPA", "dateArgued": "2022-02-28", "durationSeconds": 6341, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1530.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80073/west-virginia-et-al-petitioners-v-environmental-protection-agency-et/" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/west-virginia-v-epa", "holdingAuthor": "John G. Roberts Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-20-1566", "slug": "cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection", "label": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection", "docketNumber": "20-1566", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63252812, "dateArgued": "2022-01-18", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 107", "142 S. Ct. 1502" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6333583, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1566.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1566%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6461472, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6461472, "caseName": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 107", "142 S. Ct. 1502" ], "citeCount": 56, "judge": "Elana Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6461472/cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection-foundation/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1566_l5gm.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6333583, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1566_l5gm.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 79472, "caseName": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection", "dateArgued": "2022-01-18", "durationSeconds": 3853, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1566.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/79472/david-cassirer-et-al-petitioners-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection/", "snippet": "We will hear argument next in Case 2015-66, Cusser v. Thyssen-Bornemisza. Mr. Boies, I understand you're participating remotely? I am, Your Honor. You may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. I begin with three simple propositions. First, Respondent is a foreign state not entitled to immunity under Section 1605 of the FSIA. Second, Section 1606 of that Act provides\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection", "holdingAuthor": "Elena Kagan" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1573", "slug": "viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana", "label": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "docketNumber": "20-1573", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63385705, "dateArgued": "2022-03-30", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 639" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6349964, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1573.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1573%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6477853, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6477853, "caseName": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 639" ], "citeCount": 221, "judge": "Samuel Alito", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6477853/viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6349964, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80592, "caseName": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "dateArgued": "2022-03-30", "durationSeconds": 4856, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1573.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80592/viking-river-cruises-inc-petitioner-v-angie-moriana/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument this morning in Case No. 20-1573, Viking River Cruises v. Moriana. Mr. Clement. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the outcome here is controlled by this Court's decisions in Concepcion, Epic, and Lamps Plus. After those decisions, a State is not free to simply declare that a State statute is too important to be relegated to bilateral arbitration. None of the vary\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana", "holdingAuthor": "Samuel A. Alito Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-20-1641", "slug": "marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc", "label": "Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc.", "docketNumber": "20-1641", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63397663, "dateArgued": "2022-03-01", "dateFiled": "2022-06-21", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 880", "213 L. Ed. 2d 376", "142 S. Ct. 1968" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6351408, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1713, "authorName": "Brett M. Kavanaugh" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1641.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1641%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6479297, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6479297, "caseName": "Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc.", "dateFiled": "2022-06-21", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 880", "213 L. Ed. 2d 376", "142 S. Ct. 1968" ], "citeCount": 10, "judge": "Brett Kavanaugh", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6479297/marietta-memorial-hospital-employee-health-benefit-plan-v-davita-inc/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1641_3314.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6351408, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1713, "authorName": "Brett M. Kavanaugh", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1641_3314.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80091, "caseName": "Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc.", "dateArgued": "2022-03-01", "durationSeconds": 5273, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1641.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80091/marietta-memorial-hospital-employee-health-benefit-plan-et-al/", "snippet": "You will hear argument next in Case 2016-41, Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. Davita Inc. Mr. Kulowitz. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, for four decades the Medicare Secondary Payer Act has been a coordination of benefits statute. It establishes that a group health plan must pay its benefits first during a 30-month coordination period when the plan and Me\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc", "holdingAuthor": "Brett M. Kavanaugh" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1650", "slug": "concepcion-v-united-states", "label": "Concepcion v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1650", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Concepcion v. United States", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63549792, "dateArgued": "2022-01-19", "dateFiled": "2022-06-27", "citations": [ "597 U.S. 481" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/concepcion-v-united-states.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6495363, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1650.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1650%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6619005, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6619572, "caseName": "Concepcion v. United States", "dateFiled": "2022-06-28", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Sonia Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6619572/concepcion-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1650diff_ebgj.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6495930, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1650diff_ebgj.pdf", "snippet": " 6/28/2022 1:17:29 PM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 20-1650.pdf 20-1650_new.pdf\n versus\n 28 pages (167 KB) 28 pages (166 KB)", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6619005, "caseName": "Concepcion v. United States", "dateFiled": "2022-06-27", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 481" ], "citeCount": 114, "judge": "Sonia Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6619005/concepcion-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6495363, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_3dq3.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6619573, "caseName": "Concepcion v. United States", "dateFiled": "2022-06-27", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 481" ], "citeCount": 1, "judge": "Sonia Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6619573/concepcion-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_new_4gci.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6495931, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_new_4gci.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 79504, "caseName": "Concepcion v. United States", "dateArgued": "2022-01-19", "durationSeconds": 4530, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1650.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/79504/carlos-concepcion-petitioner-v-united-states/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case 20-1650, Concepcion v. United States. Mr. McCloud? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the First Circuit held below that district courts are barred from considering intervening law and facts when deciding whether to impose a reduced sentence under the first setback. That holding conflicts with the law's text, and it flouts background principles of sent\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/concepcion-v-united-states", "holdingAuthor": "Sonia Sotomayor" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1775", "slug": "arizona-v-san-francisco", "label": "Arizona v. San Francisco", "docketNumber": "20-1775", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63385992, "dateArgued": "2022-02-23", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 763" ], "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/arizona-v-san-francisco.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6350018, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1775.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1775%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6477907, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6477907, "caseName": "Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 763" ], "citeCount": 5, "judge": "Per Curiam", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6477907/arizona-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1775_4425.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6350018, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1775_4425.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 1\n\n Per Curiam\n\n NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the\n preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to\n notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-\n ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that\n corrections may b", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80041, "caseName": "Arizona v. San Francisco", "dateArgued": "2022-02-23", "durationSeconds": 4867, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1775.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80041/arizona-et-al-petitioners-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco/", "snippet": "We will hear argument this morning in Case 20-1775, Arizona v. San Francisco. General Brnovich. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Ninth Circuit's refusal to let Arizona and other states intervene to defend the public charge rule capped an unprecedented effort by the United States to unlawfully disregard a prior administration's rule. The Department of Justice had spent more than\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/arizona-v-san-francisco", "holdingAuthor": "Per Curiam" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1800", "slug": "shurtleff-v-boston", "label": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "docketNumber": "20-1800", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63279278, "dateArgued": "2022-01-18", "dateFiled": "2022-05-02", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 243" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/shurtleff-v-boston.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6336928, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1800.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1800%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6464817, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6464817, "caseName": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "dateFiled": "2022-05-02", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 243" ], "citeCount": 32, "judge": "Stephen Breyer", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6464817/shurtleff-v-boston/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6336928, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6468902, "caseName": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "dateFiled": "2022-05-02", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 243" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Stephen Breyer", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6468902/shurtleff-v-boston/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6341013, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1800_7lho.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 79471, "caseName": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "dateArgued": "2022-01-18", "durationSeconds": 4978, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-1800.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/79471/harold-shurtleff-et-al-petitioners-v-city-of-boston-massachusetts-et/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Case No. 20-1800, Shurtleff v. Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Staver. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. After 12 years with 284 flag-raising approvals, no denials, and usually no review, one word caught the attention of a Boston official, the word Christian on the application. The flag itself was not the problem. Had it been called anything but\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/shurtleff-v-boston", "holdingAuthor": "Stephen Breyer" }, { "id": "scotus-20-219", "slug": "cummings-v-premier-rehab", "label": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab", "docketNumber": "20-219", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63270152, "dateArgued": "2021-11-30", "dateFiled": "2022-04-28", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 212", "142 S. Ct. 1562" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/cummings-v-premier-rehab.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6335831, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-219.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-219%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6463720, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6463720, "caseName": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller", "dateFiled": "2022-04-28", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 212", "142 S. Ct. 1562" ], "citeCount": 235, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6463720/cummings-v-premier-rehab-keller/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-219_1b82.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6335831, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-219_1b82.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78742, "caseName": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab", "dateArgued": "2021-11-30", "durationSeconds": 4817, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-219.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78742/jane-cummings-petitioner-v-premier-rehab-keller-pllc/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in case number 20-219, Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller. Mr. Rosensky. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Fifth Circuit categorically prohibited emotional distress damages in all instances under spending clause statutes prohibiting discrimination. Based on Franklin and Barnes, that decision is wrong. Franklin held that removal, and Barnes re\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/cummings-v-premier-rehab", "holdingAuthor": "John G. Roberts Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-20-303", "slug": "united-states-v-vaello-madero", "label": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "docketNumber": "20-303", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "United States v. Vaello Madero", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63252810, "dateArgued": "2021-11-09", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 159", "142 S. Ct. 1539" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/united-states-v-vaello-madero.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6333581, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1713, "authorName": "Brett M. Kavanaugh" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-303.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-303%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6461470, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6463787, "caseName": "United States v. Vaello Madero", "dateFiled": "2022-04-28", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Brett Kavanaugh", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6463787/united-states-v-vaello-madero/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-303diff_1q24.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6335898, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1713, "authorName": "Brett M. Kavanaugh", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-303diff_1q24.pdf", "snippet": " 4/28/2022 11:25:00 AM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 20-303.pdf 20-303_new.pdf\n versus\n 43 pages (240 KB) 43 pages ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6461470, "caseName": "United States v. Vaello Madero", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 159", "142 S. Ct. 1539" ], "citeCount": 30, "judge": "Brett Kavanaugh", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6461470/united-states-v-vaello-madero/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6333581, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1713, "authorName": "Brett M. Kavanaugh", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-303_6khn.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78453, "caseName": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "dateArgued": "2021-11-09", "durationSeconds": 4366, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-303.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78453/united-states-petitioner-v-jose-luis-vaello-madero/", "snippet": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Congress's decision not to extend its Supplemental Security Income Program to Puerto Rico lacks a rational basis. As this Court has recognized, Puerto Rico has a unique tax status vis-a-vis the federal government. Puerto Rico's residents and employers contribute to federal unemployment insurance and to the\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-vaello-madero", "holdingAuthor": "Brett M. Kavanaugh" }, { "id": "scotus-20-322", "slug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "label": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "docketNumber": "20-322", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Garland v. Gonzalez", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63379473, "dateArgued": "2022-01-11", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 543", "142 S. Ct. 2057", "213 L. Ed. 2d 102" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6349227, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-322.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-322%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6477116, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6478733, "caseName": "Garland v. Gonzalez", "dateFiled": "2022-06-17", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Samuel Alito", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6478733/garland-v-gonzalez/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-322diff_9mbe.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6350844, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-322diff_9mbe.pdf", "snippet": " 6/17/2022 11:38:11 AM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 20-322.pdf 20-322_new.pdf\n versus\n 32 pages (195 KB) 32 pages ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6477116, "caseName": "Garland v. Gonzalez", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 543", "142 S. Ct. 2057", "213 L. Ed. 2d 102" ], "citeCount": 92, "judge": "Samuel Alito", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6477116/garland-v-gonzalez/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-322_m6hn.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6349227, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-322_m6hn.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 79316, "caseName": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "dateArgued": "2022-01-11", "durationSeconds": 3817, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-322.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/79316/merrick-b-garland-attorney-general-et-al-petitioners-v-esteban-aleman/", "snippet": "Mr. Gannon. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, with respect to the original question presented, if the Court reaches it in this case, the government's position is, as Mr. Rayner has just explained in the first case this morning, Section 1231A.6 does not compel the bond-hearing regime imposed by the Ninth Circuit, any more than the Third Circuit, after the removal period, not as a mat\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "holdingAuthor": "Samuel A. Alito Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-20-443", "slug": "united-states-v-tsarnaev", "label": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "docketNumber": "20-443", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63134643, "dateArgued": "2021-10-13", "dateFiled": "2022-03-04", "citations": [ "595 U.S. 302" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of t he Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. TSARNAEV CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 20\u2013443. Argued October 13, 2021\u2014Decided March 4, 2022 On April 15, 2013, brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev planted and detonated two homemade pressure -cooker bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding hundreds. Three days later, as investigators began to close in, the brothers fled. In the process, they murdered a Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus police officer, carjacked a graduate student, and fought a street battle with police during which Dzhokhar inadvertently ran over and killed Tamerlan. Dzhokhar eventually abandoned the vehicle and hid in a covered boat being stored in a nearby backyard. He was arrested the following day. Dzhokhar was indicted for 30 crimes, including 17 capital offenses. To prepare for jury selection, the parties proposed a 100 -question screening form, which included several questions regarding whether media coverage may have biased prospective jurors. The District Court declined to include a proposed question that asked each prospec- tive juror to list the facts he had learned about the case from the media and other sources. According to the District Court, the question was too \u201cunfocused\u201d and \u201cunguided. \u201d Following three weeks of in -person questioning, a jury was seated. The jury found Dzhokhar guilty on all counts, and the Government sought the death penalty. At sentencing, Dzhokhar sought mitigation based on the theory that Tamerlan had masterminded the bombing and pressured Dzhokhar to participate. In an attempt to show Tamerlan\u2019s domineering nature, Dzhokhar sought to introduce the statements of Ibragim Todashev, who had alleged during an FBI interview that, years earlier, Tamerlan had participated in a triple homicide in Waltham, Massachusetts. The Government asked the trial court to exclude any reference to the Wal- 2 UNITED STATES v. TSARNAEV Syllabus tham murders on the grounds that the evidence either lacked rele- vance or, alternatively, lacked probative value\u2026", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/united-states-v-tsarnaev.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6320169, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-443.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-443%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6448058, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6448058, "caseName": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "dateFiled": "2022-03-04", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 302" ], "citeCount": 26, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448058/united-states-v-tsarnaev/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-443_m6ho.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6320169, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-443_m6ho.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6448085, "caseName": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "dateFiled": "2022-03-04", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 302" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448085/united-states-v-tsarnaev/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-443diff_1q24.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6320196, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-443diff_1q24.pdf", "snippet": " 3/4/2022 10:58:44 AM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 20-443.pdf 20-443_new.pdf\n versus\n 44 pages (464 KB) 44 pages (503 KB)\n ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6448086, "caseName": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "dateFiled": "2022-03-04", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 302" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448086/united-states-v-tsarnaev/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-443_new_2d8f.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6320197, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-443_new_2d8f.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78070, "caseName": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "dateArgued": "2021-10-13", "durationSeconds": 5675, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-443.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78070/united-states-petitioner-v-dzhokhar-a-tsarnaev/", "snippet": "We will hear argument first this morning in case 2443, United States v. Tsarnaev. Mr. Fagan. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. After watching video of respondent, by himself, personally placing a shrapnel bomb behind a group of children at the Boston Marathon, the jury in this case returned a nuanced verdict, unanimously recommending capital punishment for that specific d\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-tsarnaev", "holdingAuthor": "Clarence Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-20-480", "slug": "babcock-v-kijakazi", "label": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "docketNumber": "20-480", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "status": "decided", "docketId": 62546725, "dateArgued": "2021-10-13", "dateFiled": "2022-01-13", "citations": [ "595 U.S. 77", "211 L. Ed. 2d 424", "142 S. Ct. 641" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/babcock-v-kijakazi.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6052574, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-480.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-480%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6186439, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6186439, "caseName": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "dateFiled": "2022-01-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 77", "211 L. Ed. 2d 424", "142 S. Ct. 641" ], "citeCount": 9, "judge": "Amy Coney Barrett", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6186439/babcock-v-kijakazi/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-480_b97c.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6052574, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-480_b97c.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78071, "caseName": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "dateArgued": "2021-10-13", "durationSeconds": 3197, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-480.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78071/david-bryon-babcock-petitioner-v-kilolo-kijakazi-acting-commissioner-of/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in case 2480, Babcock v. Kijakazi. Mr. Katyal. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. I'd like to begin with the statutory text. Section 415A7A is found at Petition Appendix page 69A, and it excludes from the Windfall Elimination Provision, quote, a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service, as defined in Section 410M. David Ba\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/babcock-v-kijakazi", "holdingAuthor": "Amy Coney Barrett" }, { "id": "scotus-20-493", "slug": "ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas", "label": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "docketNumber": "20-493", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63385704, "dateArgued": "2022-02-22", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 685", "142 S. Ct. 1929", "213 L. Ed. 2d 221" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6349963, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-493.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-493%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6477852, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6477852, "caseName": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 685", "142 S. Ct. 1929", "213 L. Ed. 2d 221" ], "citeCount": 56, "judge": "Neil Gorsuch", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6477852/ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6349963, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80031, "caseName": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "dateArgued": "2022-02-22", "durationSeconds": 5503, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-493.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80031/ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-et-al-petitioners-v-texas/", "snippet": "Mr. Martin. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The question this case presents is whether the Restoration Act subjects the Pueblo to Texas' time, place, and manner restrictions as it relates to games that Texas does not flatly prohibit. It does not. In the Restoration Act, Congress codified the Cabazon ban framework and specifically foreclosed Texas' regulatory authority over the tri\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas", "holdingAuthor": "Neil M. Gorsuch" }, { "id": "scotus-20-5279", "slug": "wooden-v-united-states", "label": "Wooden v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5279", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Wooden v. United States", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63138379, "dateArgued": "2021-10-04", "dateFiled": "2022-03-07", "citations": [ "595 U.S. 360" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/wooden-v-united-states.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6320727, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-5279.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-5279%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6448616, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6448934, "caseName": "Wooden v. United States", "dateFiled": "2022-03-08", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Elana Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448934/wooden-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-5279diff_5357.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6321045, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-5279diff_5357.pdf", "snippet": " 3/8/2022 9:20:39 AM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 20-5279.pdf 20-5279_new.pdf\n versus\n 43 pages (225 KB) 43 pages (225 KB)\n ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6448616, "caseName": "Wooden v. United States", "dateFiled": "2022-03-07", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 360" ], "citeCount": 123, "judge": "Elana Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448616/wooden-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-5279_09m1.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6320727, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-5279_09m1.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6448935, "caseName": "Wooden v. United States", "dateFiled": "2022-03-07", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 360" ], "citeCount": 1, "judge": "Elana Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448935/wooden-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-5279_new_h315.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6321046, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-5279_new_h315.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 77874, "caseName": "Wooden v. United States", "dateArgued": "2021-10-04", "durationSeconds": 3893, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-5279.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/77874/william-dale-wooden-petitioner-v-united-states/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case 20-5279, Wooden v. United States. Mr. Kedem. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, as its name suggests, the Armed Career Criminal Act singles out the most intractable offenders for the harshest punishments by requiring three qualifying offenses, quote, committed on occasions different from one another. That phrase does not apply to defendants like Mr. W\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/wooden-v-united-states", "holdingAuthor": "Elena Kagan" }, { "id": "scotus-20-601", "slug": "cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "label": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "docketNumber": "20-601", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P. S. C.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63131039, "dateArgued": "2021-10-12", "dateFiled": "2022-03-03", "citations": [ "595 U.S. 267" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of t he Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CAMERON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KENTUCKY v. EMW WOMEN\u2019S SURGICAL CENTER, P. S. C., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 20\u2013601. Argued October 12, 2021\u2014Decided March 3, 2022 EMW Women\u2019s Surgical Center and two of its doctors filed a federal suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of Kentucky House Bill 454, legislation regulating the abortion procedure known as dilation and evacuation. Named defendants in EMW\u2019s lawsuit included two Commonwealth of- ficials, the attorney general and the cabinet secretary for Health and Family Services. EMW agreed to dismiss claims against the attorney general without prejudice. The stipulation of dismissal specified that the attorney general\u2019s office reserved \u201call rights, claims, and defenses . . . in any appeals arising out of this action\u201d and agreed to be bound by \u201cany final judgment . . . subject to any modification, reversal or vaca- tion of the judgment on appeal.\u201d App. 28\u201330. The secretary remained in the case and defended the challenged law. After a bench tr ial, the District Court held that HB 454 unconstitutionally burdens a woman\u2019s right to an abortion and issued a permanent injunction against the law\u2019s enforcement. The secretary filed a notice of appeal. While the appeal was pending, Kentucky elected a new attorney general, petitioner David Cameron, and elected the former attorney general, Andrew Beshear, Governor. Governor Beshear appointed a new secretary for Health and Family Services who continued the defense of HB 454 on appeal. Prior to oral argument before the Sixth Circuit, Attorney General Cameron entered an appearance as counsel for the new secretary. A divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed the District Court\u2019s judgment. The secretary then informed the attorney general\u2019s office that the sec- retary would not file a petition for rehearing en banc or a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the Sixth Circuit panel\u2019s decision. Two 2 CAMERON v. EMW WOMEN\u2019S SURGICAL CENTER, P. S. C. Syllabus days later, the attorney general moved to withdraw as counsel for the\u2026", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6319656, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-601.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-601%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6447545, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6448162, "caseName": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P. S. C.", "dateFiled": "2022-03-04", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Samuel Alito", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448162/cameron-v-emw-womens-surgical-center-p-s-c/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-601diff_2034.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6320273, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-601diff_2034.pdf", "snippet": " 3/4/2022 2:02:13 PM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 20-601.pdf 20-601_new.pdf\n versus\n 38 pages (252 KB) 38 pages (309 KB)\n ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6447545, "caseName": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P. S. C.", "dateFiled": "2022-03-03", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 267" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Samuel Alito", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6447545/cameron-v-emw-womens-surgical-center-p-s-c/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-601_bq7c.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6319656, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-601_bq7c.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6448163, "caseName": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P. S. C.", "dateFiled": "2022-03-03", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 267" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Samuel Alito", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448163/cameron-v-emw-womens-surgical-center-p-s-c/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-601_new_g20h.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6320274, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-601_new_g20h.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78063, "caseName": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "dateArgued": "2021-10-12", "durationSeconds": 4390, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-601.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78063/daniel-cameron-attorney-general-of-kentucky-petitioner-v-emw-womens/", "snippet": "We will hear argument first this morning in Case 2601, Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. Mr. Kuhn. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, two days after learning that another state official had stopped defending Kentucky's House Bill 454, the Attorney General moved to intervene so that the Commonwealth could exhaust all appeals in defense of its law. The Sixth Circuit kept the Atto\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "holdingAuthor": "Samuel A. Alito Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-20-603", "slug": "torres-v-texas-dept-of-public-safety", "label": "Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety", "docketNumber": "20-603", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63556606, "dateArgued": "2022-03-29", "dateFiled": "2022-06-29", "citations": [ "597 U.S. 580", "142 S. Ct. 2455", "213 L. Ed. 2d 808" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/torres-v-texas-dept-of-public-safety.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6496180, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-603.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-603%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6619822, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6619822, "caseName": "Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety", "dateFiled": "2022-06-29", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 580", "142 S. Ct. 2455", "213 L. Ed. 2d 808" ], "citeCount": 40, "judge": "Stephen Breyer", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6619822/torres-v-texas-department-of-public-safety/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6496180, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80577, "caseName": "Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety", "dateArgued": "2022-03-29", "durationSeconds": 6066, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-603.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80577/le-roy-torres-petitioner-v-texas-department-of-public-safety/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument this morning in Case 2603, Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety. Mr. Tutte? Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support armies, and the reason for that grant was to ensure the survival of the nation. The Constitution provided Congress with the tools necessary to fulfill its preeminent national defen\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/torres-v-texas-dept-of-public-safety", "holdingAuthor": "Stephen Breyer" }, { "id": "scotus-20-637", "slug": "hemphill-v-new-york", "label": "Hemphill v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-637", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Hemphill v. New York", "status": "decided", "docketId": 62610591, "dateArgued": "2021-10-05", "dateFiled": "2022-01-20", "citations": [ "595 U.S. 140" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/hemphill-v-new-york.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6105120, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-637.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-637%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6238238, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6244456, "caseName": "Hemphill v. New York", "dateFiled": "2022-01-21", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Sonia Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6244456/hemphill-v-new-york/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-637diff_6468.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6111633, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-637diff_6468.pdf", "snippet": " 1/21/2022 2:44:38 PM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 20-637.pdf 20-637_new.pdf\n versus\n 32 pages (181 KB) 32 pages (184 KB)\n ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6238238, "caseName": "Hemphill v. New York", "dateFiled": "2022-01-20", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 140" ], "citeCount": 18, "judge": "Sonia Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6238238/hemphill-v-new-york/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6105120, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6244457, "caseName": "Hemphill v. New York", "dateFiled": "2022-01-20", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 140" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Sonia Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6244457/hemphill-v-new-york/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-637_new_6khn.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6111634, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-637_new_6khn.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 77908, "caseName": "Hemphill v. New York", "dateArgued": "2021-10-05", "durationSeconds": 4218, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-637.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/77908/darrell-hemphill-petitioner-v-new-york/", "snippet": "Mr. T. Justice, and may it please the Court, a defendant cannot lose his right under the Confrontation Clause to exclude testimonial hearsay simply by making a legitimate defense based on admissible evidence. And that is true even if the hearsay the prosecution would like to introduce would supposedly contradict that defense. To the contrary, history and experience tell us that is when the clause\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/hemphill-v-new-york", "holdingAuthor": "Sonia Sotomayor" }, { "id": "scotus-20-659", "slug": "thompson-v-clark", "label": "Thompson v. Clark", "docketNumber": "20-659", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Thompson v. Clark", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63210618, "dateArgued": "2021-10-12", "dateFiled": "2022-04-04", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 36", "142 S. Ct. 1332" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/thompson-v-clark.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6329458, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1713, "authorName": "Brett M. Kavanaugh" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-659.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-659%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6457347, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6457347, "caseName": "Thompson v. Clark", "dateFiled": "2022-04-04", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 36", "142 S. Ct. 1332" ], "citeCount": 814, "judge": "Brett Kavanaugh", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6457347/thompson-v-clark/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-659_3ea4.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6329458, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1713, "authorName": "Brett M. Kavanaugh", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-659_3ea4.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78066, "caseName": "Thompson v. Clark", "dateArgued": "2021-10-12", "durationSeconds": 5383, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-659.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78066/larry-thompson-petitioner-v-pagiel-clark-et-al/", "snippet": "We will hear argument next in Case 2659, Thompson v. Clark. Mr. Ali? Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Second Circuit holds that a criminal proceeding terminates in the accused's favor only if it affirmatively indicated that the accused is innocent. That is wrong. A criminal proceeding terminates in the accused's favor when it ends and the prosecution has failed to ob\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/thompson-v-clark", "holdingAuthor": "Brett M. Kavanaugh" }, { "id": "scotus-20-7622", "slug": "denezpi-v-united-states", "label": "Denezpi v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-7622", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Denezpi v. United States", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63379474, "dateArgued": "2022-02-22", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 591", "142 S. Ct. 1838" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/denezpi-v-united-states.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6349228, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-7622.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-7622%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6477117, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6477117, "caseName": "Denezpi v. United States", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 591", "142 S. Ct. 1838" ], "citeCount": 13, "judge": "Amy Coney Barrett", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6477117/denezpi-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-7622_ljgm.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6349228, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-7622_ljgm.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80034, "caseName": "Denezpi v. United States", "dateArgued": "2022-02-22", "durationSeconds": 3933, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-7622.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80034/merle-denezpi-petitioner-v-united-states/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case 20-7622, Denezpi v. United States. Mr. Kimberly. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Double Jeopardy Clause implicates two distinct exercises of sovereign authority. First, the authority to say what an offense is, and second, the authority to put an individual in jeopardy for committing an offense. This Court has consistently assumed the\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/denezpi-v-united-states", "holdingAuthor": "Amy Coney Barrett" }, { "id": "scotus-20-804", "slug": "houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson", "label": "Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson", "docketNumber": "20-804", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Houston Community College System v. Wilson", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63183500, "dateArgued": "2021-11-02", "dateFiled": "2022-03-24", "citations": [ "595 U.S. 468" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6326350, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-804.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-804%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6454239, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6454239, "caseName": "Houston Community College System v. Wilson", "dateFiled": "2022-03-24", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 468" ], "citeCount": 64, "judge": "Neil Gorsuch", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6454239/houston-community-college-system-v-wilson/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-804_j426.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6326350, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-804_j426.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78393, "caseName": "Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson", "dateArgued": "2021-11-02", "durationSeconds": 5129, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-804.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78393/houston-community-college-system-petitioner-v-david-buren-wilson/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 2804, Houston Community College System v. Wilson. Mr. Morris. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Fifth Circuit recognized a new cause of action based on an elected body censoring a member. That decision is wrong for two reasons. First, it ignores this country's history and parliamentary tradition, which recognize the right of elected\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson", "holdingAuthor": "Neil M. Gorsuch" }, { "id": "scotus-20-807", "slug": "ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co", "label": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "docketNumber": "20-807", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63270150, "dateArgued": "2022-03-28", "dateFiled": "2022-04-28", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 242" ], "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6335830, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-807.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-807%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6463719, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6463719, "caseName": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "dateFiled": "2022-04-28", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 242" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Per Curiam", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6463719/ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-807_3f14.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6335830, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-807_3f14.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 596 U. S. ____ (2022) 1\n\n Per Curiam\n\n NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the\n preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to\n notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-\n ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that\n corrections may b", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80563, "caseName": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "dateArgued": "2022-03-28", "durationSeconds": 6065, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-807.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80563/bradley-ledure-petitioner-v-union-pacific-railroad-company/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in case 2807, LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Mr. Frederick. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. In 1904, this Court held in Johnson v. Southern Pacific that a motionless dining car was in use when a worker's hand was crushed while he was trying to couple the car with a locomotive. That case construed use under the Safety Applianc\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co", "holdingAuthor": "Per Curiam" }, { "id": "scotus-20-826", "slug": "brown-v-davenport", "label": "Brown v. Davenport", "docketNumber": "20-826", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Brown v. Davenport", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63252813, "dateArgued": "2021-10-05", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 118", "142 S. Ct. 1510" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/brown-v-davenport.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6333584, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-826.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-826%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6461473, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6461473, "caseName": "Brown v. Davenport", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 118", "142 S. Ct. 1510" ], "citeCount": 498, "judge": "Neil Gorsuch", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6461473/brown-v-davenport/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6333584, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-826_p702.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 77904, "caseName": "Brown v. Davenport", "dateArgued": "2021-10-05", "durationSeconds": 3118, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-826.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/77904/mike-brown-acting-warden-petitioner-v-ervine-davenport/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in case 2826, Brown v. Davenport. Ms. Hamoud? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Davenport's concession that Brecht doesn't always subsume ACPA narrows the dispute here. But the modified Brecht-only approach he suggests gives no deference to state courts' merits adjudications and absolves habeas petitioners of their burden under 2254 D.I. Even i\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/brown-v-davenport", "holdingAuthor": "Neil M. Gorsuch" }, { "id": "scotus-20-827", "slug": "united-states-v-zubaydah", "label": "United States v. Zubaydah", "docketNumber": "20-827", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "United States v. Zubaydah", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63131038, "dateArgued": "2021-10-06", "dateFiled": "2022-03-03", "citations": [ "595 U.S. 195" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of t he Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. HUSAYN, AKA ZUBAYDAH, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 20\u2013827. Argued October 6, 2021\u2014Decided March 3, 2022 In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency believed that Abu Zubaydah was a senior al Qaeda lieutenant likely to possess knowledge of future attacks against the United States. Zubaydah \u2014currently a detainee at the Guant\u00e1- namo Bay Naval Base \u2014 says that in 2002 and 2003 he was held at a CIA detention site in Poland, where he was subjected to \u201cenhanced in- terrogation\u201d techniques. In 2010, Zubaydah filed a criminal complaint in Poland, seeking to hold accountable any Polish nationals involved in his alleged mistreatment at the CIA site ostensibly located in that country. The United States denied multiple requests by Polish prose- cutors for information related to Zubaydah\u2019s claim on the ground that providing such information would threaten national security. Zubaydah filed a discovery application pursuant to 28 U. S. C. \u00a71782 , which permits district courts to order production of testimony or docu- ments \u201cfor use in a proceeding in a foreign . . . tribunal.\u201d Zubaydah asked for permission to serve two former CIA contractors with subpoe- nas requesting information regarding the alleged CIA detention facil- ity in Poland and Zubaydah\u2019s treatment there. The Government inter- vened and asserted the state secrets privilege in opposition to Zubaydah\u2019s discovery request. The District Court rejected the Government\u2019s claim that merely con- firming that a detention site was operated in Poland would threaten national security. The District Court nevertheless dismissed Zubaydah\u2019s discovery application. It concluded that the state secrets privilege applied to operational details concerning the CIA\u2019s coopera- tion with a foreign government, and that meaningful discovery could not proceed without disclosing privileged information. On appeal, the 2 UNITED STATES v. ZUBAYDAH Syllabus Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court that much of the i\u2026", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/united-states-v-zubaydah.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6319655, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-827.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-827%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6447544, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6623459, "caseName": "United States v. Zubaydah", "dateFiled": "2022-07-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Stephen Breyer", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6623459/united-states-v-zubaydah/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-827diff2_2b35.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6499817, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-827diff2_2b35.pdf", "snippet": " 7/13/2022 5:11:22 PM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 20-827_orig.pdf 20-827_new2.pdf\n versus\n 77 pages (1.26 MB) 77 pages (1.30 MB)\n ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6448774, "caseName": "United States v. Zubaydah", "dateFiled": "2022-03-07", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Stephen Breyer", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448774/united-states-v-zubaydah/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-827diff_1p23.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6320885, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-827diff_1p23.pdf", "snippet": " 3/7/2022 3:50:55 PM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 20-827.pdf 20-827_new.pdf\n versus\n 77 pages (1.13 MB) 77 pages (1.17 MB)\n ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6447544, "caseName": "United States v. Zubaydah", "dateFiled": "2022-03-03", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 195" ], "citeCount": 18, "judge": "Stephen Breyer", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6447544/united-states-v-zubaydah/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-827_i426.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6319655, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-827_i426.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 77946, "caseName": "United States v. Zubaydah", "dateArgued": "2021-10-06", "durationSeconds": 4230, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-827.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/77946/united-states-petitioner-v-zayn-al-abidin-muhammad-husayn-aka-abu/", "snippet": "We will hear argument in case 2827, United States v. Zubaydah. Mr. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Our nation's covert intelligence partnerships depend on our partners' trust that we will keep those relationships confidential. Respondents seek discovery that would compel a breach of that trust by confirming or denying the existence of an alleged CIA facility i\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-zubaydah", "holdingAuthor": "Stephen Breyer" }, { "id": "scotus-20-828", "slug": "fbi-v-fazaga", "label": "FBI v. Fazaga", "docketNumber": "20-828", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "FBI v. Fazaga", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63134644, "dateArgued": "2021-11-08", "dateFiled": "2022-03-04", "citations": [ "595 U.S. 344" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of t he Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ET AL. v. FAZAGA ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 20\u2013828. Argued November 8, 2021\u2014Decided March 4, 2022 Respondents Yassir Fazaga, Ali Malik, and Yasser Abdel Rahim, mem- bers of Muslim communities in California, filed a putative class action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation and certain Government officials, claiming that the Government subjected them and other Mus- lims to illegal surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). FISA provides special procedures for use when the Government wishes to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance. Rele- vant here, FISA provides a procedure under which a trial -level court or other authority may consider the legality of electronic surveillance conducted under FISA and order specified forms of relief. See 50 U. S. C. \u00a71806(f). The Government moved to dismiss most of respond- ents\u2019 claims under the \u201cstate secrets\u201d privilege. See, e.g., General Dy- namics Corp. v. United States, 563 U. S. 478. After reviewing both public and classified filings, the District Court held that the state se- crets privilege required dismissal of all respondents\u2019 claims against the Government, except for one claim under \u00a71810, which it dismissed on other grounds. The District Court determined dismissal appropriate because litigation of the dismissed claims \u201cwould require or unjustifi- ably risk disclosure of secret and classified information.\u201d 884 F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1028 \u20131029. The Ninth Circuit reversed in relev ant part, holding that \u201cCongress intended FISA to displace the state secrets privilege and its dismissal remedy with respect to electronic surveil- lance.\u201d 965 F. 3d 1015, 1052. Held: Section 1806(f) does not displace the state secrets privilege. Pp. 7\u2013 13. (a) The case requires the Court to determine whether FISA affects the availability or scope of the long-established \u201cGovernment privilege 2 FBI v. FAZAGA Syllabus against court-ordered disclosure of state and military secrets.\u201d General Dynamics Corp., 563\u2026", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/fbi-v-fazaga.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6320170, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-828.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-828%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6448059, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6448059, "caseName": "FBI v. Fazaga", "dateFiled": "2022-03-04", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 344" ], "citeCount": 6, "judge": "Samuel Alito", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6448059/fbi-v-fazaga/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-828_5ie6.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6320170, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 77, "authorName": "Samuel A. Alito Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-828_5ie6.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78445, "caseName": "FBI v. Fazaga", "dateArgued": "2021-11-08", "durationSeconds": 7612, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-828.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78445/federal-bureau-of-investigation-et-al-petitioners-v-yassir-fazaga-et/", "snippet": "We will hear argument first this morning in case 2828, the Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga. Mr. Kneedler. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the state secret's privilege is firmly grounded in the Constitution and the common law, and is critical to safeguarding the national security. The Ninth Circuit did not disagree with the District Court's conclusion that the information\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/fbi-v-fazaga", "holdingAuthor": "Samuel A. Alito Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-20-843", "slug": "nysrpa-v-bruen", "label": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen", "docketNumber": "20-843", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [ "second-amendment", "guns", "public-carry" ], "whyTracked": "History-and-tradition test for public-carry firearm regulations.", "caseName": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63405001, "dateArgued": "2021-11-03", "dateFiled": "2022-06-23", "citations": [ "597 U.S. 1", "142 S. Ct. 2111", "213 L. Ed. 2d 387" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/nysrpa-v-bruen.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6352829, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-843%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6480696, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 7686272, "caseName": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen", "dateFiled": "2022-07-29", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7686272/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-assn-inc-v-bruen/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843diff_jgkn.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 7621109, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843diff_jgkn.pdf", "snippet": " 7/29/2022 10:37:59 AM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 20-843.pdf 20-843_new.pdf\n versus\n 135 pages (609 KB) 135 pages", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6480696, "caseName": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen", "dateFiled": "2022-06-23", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 1", "142 S. Ct. 2111", "213 L. Ed. 2d 387" ], "citeCount": 2341, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6480696/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-assn-inc-v-bruen/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6352829, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\n NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION,\n INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW\n YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.\n\nCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\n THE SECOND CIRCUIT\n\n No. 20\u2013843. Argued November 3, 2021\u2014Decided June 23, 2022\nThe State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a\n license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants\n to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license\n to \u201chave and carry\u201d a concealed \u201cpistol or revolver\u201d if he can prove that\n \u201cproper cause exists\u201d for doing so. N. Y. Penal Law Ann. \u00a7400.00(2)(f ).\n An applicant satisfies the \u201cproper cause\u201d requirement only if he can\n \u201cdemonstrate a special need for self-protection\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78425, "caseName": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen", "dateArgued": "2021-11-03", "durationSeconds": 6030, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-843.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78425/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-et-al-petitioners-v/" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/nysrpa-v-bruen", "holdingAuthor": "Clarence Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-20-915", "slug": "unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-l-p", "label": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.", "docketNumber": "20-915", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L. P.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63111509, "dateArgued": "2021-11-08", "dateFiled": "2022-02-24", "citations": [ "595 U.S. 178", "142 S. Ct. 941", "211 L. Ed. 2d 586" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of t he Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNICOLORS, INC. v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L. P. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 20\u2013915. Argued November 8, 2021\u2014Decided February 24 , 2022 A valid copyright registration provides a copyright holder with important legal advantages, including the right to bring a \u201ccivil action for in- fringement\u201d of the copyrighted work. 17 U. S. C. \u00a7411(a). Petitioner Unicolors, the owner of copyrights in various fabric designs, filed a copy- right infringement action against H&M Hennes & Mauritz (H&M). A jury found in favor of Unicolors. H&M sought judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Unicolors could not maintain an infringement suit because Unicolors knowingly included inaccurate information on its registration application, rendering its copyright registra tion invalid. The alleged inaccuracy stemmed from Unicolors having filed a single application seeking registration for 31 separate works despite a Copy- right Office regulation that provides that a single application may cover multiple works only if they we re \u201cincluded in the same unit of publication.\u201d H&M argued that Unicolors did not meet this require- ment because Unicolors had initially made some of the 31 designs available for sale exclusively to certain customers, while offering the rest to the general public. The District Court determined that because Unicolors did not know when it filed its application that it had failed to satisfy the \u201csingle unit of publication\u201d requirement, Unicolors\u2019 copy- right registration remained valid by operation of the safe harbor pro- vision provided under \u00a7411(b)(1)(A). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit de- termined that it did not matter whether Unicolors was aware that it had failed to satisfy the single unit of publication requirement, because the safe harbor excuses only good-faith mistakes of fact, not law. Uni- colors had known the relevant facts, so its knowledge of the law (or lack thereof ) was irrelevant. Held: Section 411(b) does not distinguish between a mistake of law and a mistake of fact; lack of either factual or legal\u2026", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-l-p.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6317041, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-915.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-915%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6444930, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6444930, "caseName": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L. P.", "dateFiled": "2022-02-24", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "595 U.S. 178", "142 S. Ct. 941", "211 L. Ed. 2d 586" ], "citeCount": 60, "judge": "Stephen Breyer", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6444930/unicolors-inc-v-hm-hennes-mauritz-l-p/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-915_pol1.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6317041, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-915_pol1.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78446, "caseName": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.", "dateArgued": "2021-11-08", "durationSeconds": 4692, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-915.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78446/unicolors-inc-petitioner-v-hm-hennes-mauritz-lp/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case 2915, Unicolors v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz. Mr. Rosenkranz. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The question here is, what state of mind a copyright infringer must prove to establish that an applicant included inaccurate information, quote, with knowledge that it was inaccurate? The answer is that it requires subjective awareness of what of the\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-l-p", "holdingAuthor": "Stephen Breyer" }, { "id": "scotus-20-979", "slug": "patel-v-garland-att-y-gen", "label": "Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "20-979", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Patel v. Garland", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63312348, "dateArgued": "2021-12-06", "dateFiled": "2022-05-16", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 328", "142 S. Ct. 1614" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/patel-v-garland-att-y-gen.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6341011, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-979.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-979%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6468900, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6468900, "caseName": "Patel v. Garland", "dateFiled": "2022-05-16", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 328", "142 S. Ct. 1614" ], "citeCount": 528, "judge": "Amy Coney Barrett", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6468900/patel-v-garland/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6341011, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-979_h3ci.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 78800, "caseName": "Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "dateArgued": "2021-12-06", "durationSeconds": 5479, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/20-979.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/78800/pankajkumar-s-patel-et-al-petitioners-v-merrick-b-garland-attorney/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument first this morning in case 2979, Patel v. Garland. Mr. Fleming? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, as the government agrees, section 1252A2B1 does not bar review of the agency's threshold determination that Mr. Patel is ineligible for adjustment of status. That understanding is consistent with the statutory text, context, and history, and it's also consistent with\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/patel-v-garland-att-y-gen", "holdingAuthor": "Amy Coney Barrett" }, { "id": "scotus-21-12", "slug": "federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate", "label": "Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate", "docketNumber": "21-12", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Federal Election Comm'n v. Ted Cruz", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63313748, "dateArgued": "2022-01-19", "dateFiled": "2022-05-16", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 289" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6341137, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-12.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-12%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6469026, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6469026, "caseName": "Federal Election Comm'n v. Ted Cruz", "dateFiled": "2022-05-16", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 289" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6469026/federal-election-commn-v-ted-cruz/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-12_new_k5fm.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6341137, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-12_new_k5fm.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6468901, "caseName": "Federal Election Comm'n v. Ted Cruz", "dateFiled": "2022-05-16", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 289" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6468901/federal-election-commn-v-ted-cruz/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6341012, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-12_m6hn.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6469025, "caseName": "Federal Election Comm'n v. Ted Cruz", "dateFiled": "2022-05-16", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 289" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6469025/federal-election-commn-v-ted-cruz/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-12diff_qn13.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6341136, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-12diff_qn13.pdf", "snippet": " 5/16/2022 3:18:49 PM\n\n\n Compare Results\n\n Old File: New File:\n 21-12.pdf 21-12_new.pdf\n versus\n 42 pages (211 KB) 42 pages (210 KB)\n ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 79503, "caseName": "Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate", "dateArgued": "2022-01-19", "durationSeconds": 5302, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-12.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/79503/federal-election-commission-appellant-v-ted-cruz-for-senate-et-al/", "snippet": "We will hear argument first this morning in Case 21-12, Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate. Mr. Stewart. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Appellees' suit should be dismissed for lack of standing, but if the Court reaches the merits, it should reverse the District Court's judgment and hold that the statutory loan repayment limit is constitutional. Appellees lack stan\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate", "holdingAuthor": "John G. Roberts Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-21-147", "slug": "egbert-v-boule", "label": "Egbert v. Boule", "docketNumber": "21-147", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Egbert v. Boule", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63369289, "dateArgued": "2022-03-02", "dateFiled": "2022-06-08", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 482", "142 S. Ct. 1793" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/egbert-v-boule.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6347905, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-147.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-147%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6475794, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6475794, "caseName": "Egbert v. Boule", "dateFiled": "2022-06-08", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 482", "142 S. Ct. 1793" ], "citeCount": 1028, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6475794/egbert-v-boule/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6347905, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80092, "caseName": "Egbert v. Boule", "dateArgued": "2022-03-02", "durationSeconds": 4314, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-147.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80092/erik-egbert-petitioner-v-robert-boule/", "snippet": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. This Court should not expand Bivens for the first time in 40 years. First, Bivens extensions clash with modern precedents. Bivens interpreted federal courts' jurisdiction over federal questions, thus authorizing courts to fashion new damages actions. Decades of intervening cases reject that premise and remove any doctrinal basis for Bivens extension\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/egbert-v-boule", "holdingAuthor": "Clarence Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-21-234", "slug": "george-v-mcdonough", "label": "George v. McDonough", "docketNumber": "21-234", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "George v. McDonough", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63385991, "dateArgued": "2022-04-19", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 740", "213 L. Ed. 2d 265", "142 S. Ct. 1953" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/george-v-mcdonough.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6350017, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-234.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-234%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6477906, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6477906, "caseName": "George v. McDonough", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 740", "213 L. Ed. 2d 265", "142 S. Ct. 1953" ], "citeCount": 59, "judge": "Amy Coney Barrett", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6477906/george-v-mcdonough/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6350017, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80830, "caseName": "George v. McDonough", "dateArgued": "2022-04-19", "durationSeconds": 4521, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-234.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80830/kevin-r-george-petitioner-v-denis-r-mcdonough-secretary-of-veterans/", "snippet": "We will hear argument first this morning in case 21-234, George v. McDonough. Ms. Bostwick. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, our nation's Veterans Benefit System is intended to be strongly and uniquely proclaimant. In this non-adversarial system, Veterans enjoy distinct procedural protections, and review of otherwise final decisions for clear and unmistakable error, or CUE, is one\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/george-v-mcdonough", "holdingAuthor": "Amy Coney Barrett" }, { "id": "scotus-21-248", "slug": "berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp", "label": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP", "docketNumber": "21-248", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63405003, "dateArgued": "2022-03-21", "dateFiled": "2022-06-23", "citations": [ "597 U.S. 179", "142 S. Ct. 2191", "213 L. Ed. 2d 517" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6352831, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-248.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-248%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6480698, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6480698, "caseName": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP", "dateFiled": "2022-06-23", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 179", "142 S. Ct. 2191", "213 L. Ed. 2d 517" ], "citeCount": 55, "judge": "Neil Gorsuch", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6480698/berger-v-north-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6352831, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80495, "caseName": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP", "dateArgued": "2022-03-21", "durationSeconds": 4262, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-248.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80495/philip-e-berger-et-al-petitioners-v-north-carolina-state-conference-of/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case 21-248, Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP. Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, North Carolina law designates the state as necessary parties, the petitioners as agents of the state and as necessary parties in all actions challenging state statutes. When such actions are filed in state court, the petitioners are defendants and n\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp", "holdingAuthor": "Neil M. Gorsuch" }, { "id": "scotus-21-309", "slug": "southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon", "label": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "docketNumber": "21-309", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63362546, "dateArgued": "2022-03-28", "dateFiled": "2022-06-06", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 450", "142 S. Ct. 1783" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6347223, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-309.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-309%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6475112, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6475112, "caseName": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "dateFiled": "2022-06-06", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 450", "142 S. Ct. 1783" ], "citeCount": 217, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6475112/southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-309_o758.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6347223, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-309_o758.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80564, "caseName": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "dateArgued": "2022-03-28", "durationSeconds": 4000, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-309.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80564/southwest-airlines-co-petitioner-v-latrice-saxon/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument next in Case 21-309, Southwest Airlines v. Saxon. Mr. Dorefsky. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Section 1 of the FAA exempts only classes of workers that work on an instrumentality of foreign or interstate commerce, like a plane, ship, or train, as it moves goods or people across borders. That rule follows from Circuit City held that the exemption reaches only\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon", "holdingAuthor": "Clarence Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-21-328", "slug": "morgan-v-sundance-inc", "label": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-328", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63329488, "dateArgued": "2022-03-21", "dateFiled": "2022-05-23", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 411", "142 S. Ct. 1708" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/morgan-v-sundance-inc.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6343025, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-328.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-328%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6470914, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6470914, "caseName": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "dateFiled": "2022-05-23", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 411", "142 S. Ct. 1708" ], "citeCount": 659, "judge": "Elana Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6470914/morgan-v-sundance-inc/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6343025, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-328_m6ho.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80494, "caseName": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "dateArgued": "2022-03-21", "durationSeconds": 4922, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-328.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80494/robyn-morgan-petitioner-v-sundance-inc/", "snippet": "We will hear argument first this morning in Case 21-328, Morgan v. Sundance. Ms. Gilbride? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires that an agreement to arbitrate be enforced unless a generally applicable contract offense renders it unenforceable. But the Eighth Circuit didn't apply a generally applicable contract defense here. It applied a\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/morgan-v-sundance-inc", "holdingAuthor": "Elena Kagan" }, { "id": "scotus-21-401", "slug": "zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd", "label": "ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "docketNumber": "21-401", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "ZF Automotive U. S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63379470, "dateArgued": "2022-03-23", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 619", "142 S. Ct. 2078", "213 L. Ed. 2d 163" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6349224, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-401.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-401%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6477113, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6477113, "caseName": "ZF Automotive U. S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 619", "142 S. Ct. 2078", "213 L. Ed. 2d 163" ], "citeCount": 16, "judge": "Amy Coney Barrett", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6477113/zf-automotive-u-s-inc-v-luxshare-ltd/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-401_2cp3.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6349224, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 8543, "authorName": "Amy Coney Barrett", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-401_2cp3.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80530, "caseName": "ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "dateArgued": "2022-03-23", "durationSeconds": 6582, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-401.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80530/zf-automotive-us-inc-et-al-petitioners-v-luxshare-ltd/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument this morning in Case 21-401, ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. and the consolidated case. Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Section 1782's text, structure, and history make clear that district courts are not authorized to grant discovery for use in purely private foreign arbitrations. The key statutory language is the complete phrase, foreign\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd", "holdingAuthor": "Amy Coney Barrett" }, { "id": "scotus-21-404", "slug": "united-states-v-washington", "label": "United States v. Washington", "docketNumber": "21-404", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "United States v. Washington", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63397660, "dateArgued": "2022-04-18", "dateFiled": "2022-06-21", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 832", "213 L. Ed. 2d 336", "142 S. Ct. 1976" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/united-states-v-washington.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6351405, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-404.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-404%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6479294, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6479294, "caseName": "United States v. Washington", "dateFiled": "2022-06-21", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 832", "213 L. Ed. 2d 336", "142 S. Ct. 1976" ], "citeCount": 34, "judge": "Stephen Breyer", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6479294/united-states-v-washington/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-404_i5ea.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6351405, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 384, "authorName": "Stephen Breyer", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-404_i5ea.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80809, "caseName": "United States v. Washington", "dateArgued": "2022-04-18", "durationSeconds": 3785, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-404.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80809/united-states-petitioner-v-washington-et-al/", "snippet": "We will hear argument first this morning in Case 21-404, United States v. Washington. Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. First, this case is not moot. We acknowledge that Washington's recent enactment of SB 5890 makes it uncertain whether a decision invalidating HB 1723 will ultimately produce any financial benefit to the United States. Under this Court's prec\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-washington", "holdingAuthor": "Stephen Breyer" }, { "id": "scotus-21-418", "slug": "kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "label": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "docketNumber": "21-418", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63549791, "dateArgued": "2022-04-25", "dateFiled": "2022-06-27", "citations": [ "597 U.S. 507", "213 L. Ed. 2d 755", "142 S. Ct. 2407" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6495362, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-418.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-418%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6619004, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6623460, "caseName": "Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.", "dateFiled": "2022-07-13", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Neil Gorsuch", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6623460/kennedy-v-bremerton-school-dist/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418diff_k4l8.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6499818, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418diff_k4l8.pdf", "snippet": "7/13/2022 5:32:36 PM \r\n Compare Results \r\n \r\n Old File: New File: \r\n 21-418.pdf 21-418_new.pdf \r\n versus \r\n 75 pag", "hasFullText": false } ] }, { "clusterId": 6619004, "caseName": "Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist.", "dateFiled": "2022-06-27", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 507", "213 L. Ed. 2d 755", "142 S. Ct. 2407" ], "citeCount": 295, "judge": "Neil Gorsuch", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6619004/kennedy-v-bremerton-school-dist/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6495362, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80880, "caseName": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "dateArgued": "2022-04-25", "durationSeconds": 6473, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-418.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80880/joseph-a-kennedy-petitioner-v-bremerton-school-district/", "snippet": "We will hear argument first this morning in Case 21-418, Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. Mr. Clement? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, when Coach Kennedy took a knee at midfield after games to say a brief prayer of thanks, his expression was entirely his own. That private religious expression was doubly protected by the free exercise and free speech clauses. When the school distric\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "holdingAuthor": "Neil M. Gorsuch" }, { "id": "scotus-21-429", "slug": "oklahoma-v-castro-huerta", "label": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "docketNumber": "21-429", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63556607, "dateArgued": "2022-04-27", "dateFiled": "2022-06-29", "citations": [ "597 U.S. 629", "142 S. Ct. 2486", "213 L. Ed. 2d 847" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/oklahoma-v-castro-huerta.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6496181, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1713, "authorName": "Brett M. Kavanaugh" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-429.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-429%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6619823, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6619823, "caseName": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "dateFiled": "2022-06-29", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 629", "142 S. Ct. 2486", "213 L. Ed. 2d 847" ], "citeCount": 149, "judge": "Brett Kavanaugh", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6619823/oklahoma-v-castro-huerta/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6496181, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1713, "authorName": "Brett M. Kavanaugh", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80924, "caseName": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "dateArgued": "2022-04-27", "durationSeconds": 6683, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-429.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80924/oklahoma-petitioner-v-victor-manuel-castro-huerta/" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/oklahoma-v-castro-huerta", "holdingAuthor": "Brett M. Kavanaugh" }, { "id": "scotus-21-439", "slug": "nance-v-ward", "label": "Nance v. Ward", "docketNumber": "21-439", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Nance v. Ward", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63405002, "dateArgued": "2022-04-25", "dateFiled": "2022-06-23", "citations": [ "597 U.S. 159", "142 S. Ct. 2214", "213 L. Ed. 2d 499" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/nance-v-ward.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6352830, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-439.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-439%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6480697, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6480697, "caseName": "Nance v. Ward", "dateFiled": "2022-06-23", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "597 U.S. 159", "142 S. Ct. 2214", "213 L. Ed. 2d 499" ], "citeCount": 152, "judge": "Elana Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6480697/nance-v-ward/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-439_bp7c.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6352830, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-439_bp7c.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 80881, "caseName": "Nance v. Ward", "dateArgued": "2022-04-25", "durationSeconds": 5162, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-439.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/80881/michael-nance-petitioner-v-timothy-c-ward-commissioner-georgia/", "snippet": "Your argument next in case number 21-439, Nance v. Ward. Mr. Hellman. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Mr. Nance's claim sounds in Section 1983 because it is a claim about how the state may execute him, not a claim that the state cannot execute him. That simple proposition decides this case, and indeed when the case began, respondents did not dispute it. Respondents knew\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/nance-v-ward", "holdingAuthor": "Elena Kagan" }, { "id": "scotus-21-441", "slug": "siegel-v-fitzgerald", "label": "Siegel v. Fitzgerald", "docketNumber": "21-441", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Siegel v. Fitzgerald", "status": "decided", "docketId": 63362547, "dateFiled": "2022-06-06", "citations": [ "596 U.S. 464", "142 S. Ct. 1770" ], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 6347224, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-441.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-441%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 6475113, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 6475113, "caseName": "Siegel v. Fitzgerald", "dateFiled": "2022-06-06", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "596 U.S. 464", "142 S. Ct. 1770" ], "citeCount": 33, "judge": "Sonia Sotomayor", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6475113/siegel-v-fitzgerald/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-441_3204.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 6347224, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3045, "authorName": "Sonia Sotomayor", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-441_3204.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "hasFullText": false } ] } ], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/siegel-v-fitzgerald", "holdingAuthor": "Sonia Sotomayor" }, { "id": "scotus-21-463", "slug": "whole-woman-s-health-v-jackson", "label": "Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson", "docketNumber": "21-463", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-463.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-463%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/whole-woman-s-health-v-jackson" }, { "id": "scotus-21-499", "slug": "vega-v-tekoh", "label": "Vega v. Tekoh", "docketNumber": "21-499", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Vega v. Tekoh", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-499.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-499%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/vega-v-tekoh" }, { "id": "scotus-21-511", "slug": "shoop-v-twyford", "label": "Shoop v. Twyford", "docketNumber": "21-511", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Shoop v. Twyford", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-511.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-511%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/shoop-v-twyford" }, { "id": "scotus-21-5592", "slug": "ramirez-v-collier", "label": "Ramirez v. Collier", "docketNumber": "21-5592", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Ramirez v. Collier", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-5592.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-5592%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/ramirez-v-collier" }, { "id": "scotus-21-5726", "slug": "kemp-v-united-states", "label": "Kemp v. United States", "docketNumber": "21-5726", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Kemp v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-5726.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-5726%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/kemp-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-21-588", "slug": "united-states-v-texas", "label": "United States v. Texas", "docketNumber": "21-588", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "United States v. Texas", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-588.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-588%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-texas" }, { "id": "scotus-21-954", "slug": "biden-v-texas", "label": "Biden v. Texas", "docketNumber": "21-954", "term": "OT 2021", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2021.", "caseName": "Biden v. Texas", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-954.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-954%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/biden-v-texas" }, { "id": "scotus-20-1199", "slug": "sffa-v-harvard", "label": "Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard", "docketNumber": "20-1199", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [ "equal-protection", "education", "affirmative-action" ], "whyTracked": "Ended race-conscious admissions at colleges and universities.", "caseName": "Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College", "status": "decided", "docketId": 67538851, "dateFiled": "2023-06-29", "citations": [ "600 U.S. 181" ], "syllabus": "STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARV ARD COLLEGE certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the \ue405rst circuit No. 20\u20131199. Argued October 31, 2022\u2014Decided June 29, 2023* Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) are two of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the United States. Every year, tens of thousands of students apply to each school; many fewer are admitted. Both Harvard and UNC employ a highly selective admis- sions process to make their decisions. Admission to each school can depend on a student's grades, recommendation letters, or extracurricu- lar involvement. It can also depend on their race. The question pre- sented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At Harvard, each application for admission is initially screened by a \u201cfrst reader,\u201d who assigns a numerical score in each of six categories: academic, extracurricular, athletic, school support, personal, and overall. For the \u201coverall\u201d category\u2014a composite of the fve other ratings\u2014a frst reader can and does consider the applicant's race. Harvard's admissions subcommittees then review all applications from a particular geographic area. These regional subcommittees make recommendations to the full admissions committee, and they take an applicant's race into account. When the 40-member full admissions committee begins its deliberations, it discusses the relative breakdown of applicants by race. The goal of the process, according to Harvard's director of admissions, is ensuring there is no \u201cdramatic drop-off\u201d in minority admissions from the prior class. An applicant receiving a majority of the full committee's votes is tentatively accepted for admission. At the end of this process, the racial composition of the tentative applicant pool is disclosed to the com- mittee. The last stage of Harvard's admissions process, called the \u201clop,\u201d winnows the list of tentatively admitted students to arrive at the fnal class. Applicants that Harvard considers cutting at this stage are placed on the \u201clop list,\u201d which contains only four pieces of information: *Together with No. 21\u2013707, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Uni- versity of North Carolina et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Page Proof Pending Publication 182 STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HA\u2026", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/sffa-v-harvard.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 10516257, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1199.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2220-1199%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 10049657, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 10049657, "caseName": "Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College", "dateFiled": "2023-06-29", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "600 U.S. 181" ], "citeCount": 189, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10049657/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-and-fellows-of-harvard/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/600us1r53_4g15.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 10516257, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/600us1r53_4g15.pdf", "snippet": " PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 600 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 181\u2013411\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 29, 2023\n\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requ", "excerpt": "PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 600 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 181\u2013411\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 29, 2023\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter\n of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\f OCTOBER TERM, 2022 181\n\n Syllabus\n\n STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v.\n PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF\n HARVARD COLLEGE\ncertiorari to the united states court of appeals for\n the \ue405rst circuit\n No. 20\u20131199. Argued October 31, 2022\u2014Decided June 29, 2023*\nHarvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) are two of\n the oldest institutions of higher learning in the United States. Every\n year, tens of thousands of students apply to each school; many fewer are\n admitted. Both Harvard and UNC employ a highly selective admis-\n sions process to make their decisions. Admission to each school can\n depend on a student's grades, recommendation letters, or extracurricu-\n lar involvement. It can also depend on thei\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 9410338, "caseName": "Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College", "dateFiled": "2023-06-29", "dateArgued": null, "citations": [ "600 U.S. 181" ], "citeCount": 34, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9410338/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-and-fellows-of-harvard/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9405814, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\n STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v.\nPRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE\n\nCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\n THE FIRST CIRCUIT\n\n No. 20\u20131199. Argued October 31, 2022\u2014Decided June 29, 2023*\nHarvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) are two of\n the oldest institutions of higher learning in the United States. Every\n year, tens of thousands of students apply to each school; many fewer\n are admitted. Both Harvard and UNC employ a highly selective ad-\n missions process to make their decisions. Admission to each school can\n depend on a student\u2019s grades, recommendation letters, or extracurric-\n ular involvement. It can also depend on their race. The question pre-\n sented is whether the a\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/sffa-v-harvard", "holdingAuthor": "John G. Roberts Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-21-1043", "slug": "abitron-austria-gmbh-v-hetronic-international-inc", "label": "Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-1043", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1043.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1043%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/abitron-austria-gmbh-v-hetronic-international-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1052", "slug": "u-s-ex-rel-polansky-v-executive-health", "label": "U.S., ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health", "docketNumber": "21-1052", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "U.S., ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1052.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1052%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/u-s-ex-rel-polansky-v-executive-health" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1086", "slug": "merrill-v-milligan", "label": "Merrill v. Milligan", "docketNumber": "21-1086", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Merrill v. Milligan", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1086.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1086%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/merrill-v-milligan" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1158", "slug": "percoco-v-united-states", "label": "Percoco v. United States", "docketNumber": "21-1158", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Percoco v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1158.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1158%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/percoco-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1164", "slug": "wilkins-v-united-states", "label": "Wilkins v. United States", "docketNumber": "21-1164", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Wilkins v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1164.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1164%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/wilkins-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1168", "slug": "mallory-v-norfolk-southern-railway-co", "label": "Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.", "docketNumber": "21-1168", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1168.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1168%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mallory-v-norfolk-southern-railway-co" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1170", "slug": "ciminelli-v-united-state", "label": "Ciminelli v. United State", "docketNumber": "21-1170", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Ciminelli v. United State", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1170.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1170%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/ciminelli-v-united-state" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1195", "slug": "bittner-v-united-states", "label": "Bittner v. United States", "docketNumber": "21-1195", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Bittner v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1195.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1195%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bittner-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1239", "slug": "sec-v-cochran", "label": "SEC v. Cochran", "docketNumber": "21-1239", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "SEC v. Cochran", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1239.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1239%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/sec-v-cochran" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1270", "slug": "moac-mall-holdings-llc-v-transform-holdco-llc", "label": "MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC", "docketNumber": "21-1270", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1270.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1270%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/moac-mall-holdings-llc-v-transform-holdco-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1271", "slug": "moore-v-harper", "label": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [ "elections", "federalism", "legislature" ], "whyTracked": "Rejected the independent state legislature theory for federal elections.", "caseName": "Moore v. Harper", "status": "decided", "docketId": 66618471, "dateArgued": "2022-12-07", "dateFiled": "2023-06-27", "citations": [ "600 U.S. 1" ], "syllabus": "ing the Elections Clause and requesting a stay of the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision. This Court declined to issue a stay, but later granted certiorari. After this Court granted certiorari, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision addressing a remedial map adopted by the trial court. Harper v. Hall, 383 N. C. 89, 125, 881 S. E. 2d 156, 181 (Har- per II). The North Carolina Supreme Court then granted the legisla- tive defendants' request to rehear that remedial decision in Harper II . The court ultimately withdrew the opinion in Harper II concerning the remedial maps and overruled Harper I, repudiating its holding that par- tisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina Constitution. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims but did not rein- state the 2021 congressional plans struck down in Harper I under the State Constitution. This Court has entertained two rounds of supple- mental briefng on jurisdictional questions in light of the state court's rehearing proceedings. Held: 1. This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Harper I that adjudicated the Federal Elec- tions Clause issue. A corollary to this Court's jurisdiction over \u201cCases\u201d and \u201cControversies\u201d is that there must exist a dispute \u201cat all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is fled.\u201d Genesis Health- Care Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U. S. 66, 71 (internal quotation marks omit- ted). The North Carolina Supreme Court's decision to withdraw Harper II and overrule Harper I does not moot this case. Prior to the appeal and rehearing proceedings in Harper II, the court had already entered the judgment and issued the mandate in Harper I, and the legis- lative defendants acknowledged that they would remain bound by Harper I 's decision enjoining the use of the 2021 plans. When the North Carolina Supreme Court \u201coverruled\u201d Harper I as part of the re- hearing proceedings, it repudiated Harper I 's conclusion that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the North Carolina Consti- tution. But the court did not purport to alter or amend the judgment in Harper I enjoining the use of the 2021 maps. Were this Court to reverse Harper I, the 2021 plans would again take effect. Because the legislative defendants' path to complete relief runs through this Court, the parties continue to have a \u201cpersonal stake in the ultimate disposition of the lawsuit\u201d suffcient to maintain this Court's jurisdiction. Chafn v.\u2026", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/moore-v-harper.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 10516260, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1271.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1271%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 10049660, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 10049660, "caseName": "Moore v. Harper", "dateFiled": "2023-06-27", "dateArgued": "2022-12-07", "citations": [ "600 U.S. 1" ], "citeCount": 49, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10049660/moore-v-harper/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/600us1r50_h3ci.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 10516260, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/600us1r50_h3ci.pdf", "snippet": " PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 600 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 1\u201365\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 27, 2023\n\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are reque", "excerpt": "PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 600 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 1\u201365\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 27, 2023\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter\n of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\f CASES ADJUDGED\n IN THE\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n AT\n\n OCTOBER TERM, 2022\n\n MOORE, in his of\ue405cial capacity as SPEAKER OF\n THE NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRE-\n SENTATIVES, et al. v. HARPER et al.\n\n certiorari to the supreme court of north carolina\nPage Proof\n No. 21\u20131271. Pending\n Argued December Publication\n 7, 2022\u2014Decided June 27, 2023\nThe Elections Clause of the Federal Constitution requires \u201cthe Legisla-\n ture\u201d of each State to prescribe the rules governing federal elections.\n Art. I, \u00a7 4, cl. 1. This case concerns the claim that the Clause vests\n state legislatures with authority to set rules governing federal elections\n free from restrictions imposed under state law. Following the 2020 de-\n cen\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 9409605, "caseName": "Moore v. Harper", "dateFiled": "2023-06-27", "dateArgued": "2022-12-07", "citations": [ "600 U.S. 1" ], "citeCount": 41, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9409605/moore-v-harper/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9405081, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\nMOORE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE\nNORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,\n ET AL. v. HARPER ET AL.\n\n CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA\n\n No. 21\u20131271. Argued December 7, 2022\u2014Decided June 27, 2023\nThe Elections Clause of the Federal Constitution requires \u201cthe Legisla-\n ture\u201d of each State to prescribe the rules governing federal elections.\n Art. I, \u00a74, cl. 1. This case concerns the claim that the Clause vests\n state legislatures with authority to set rules governing federal elec-\n tions free from restrictions imposed under state law. Following the\n 2020 decennial census, North Carolina\u2019s General Assembly drafted a\n new federal congressional map, which several groups of plaintiffs chal-\n len\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 84125, "caseName": "Moore v. Harper", "dateArgued": "2022-12-07", "durationSeconds": 8955, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-1271.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/84125/timothy-k-moore-in-his-official-capacity-as-speaker-of-the-north-carolina/" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/moore-v-harper", "holdingAuthor": "John G. Roberts Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-21-1326", "slug": "u-s-ex-rel-schutte-v-supervalu-inc", "label": "U.S., ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-1326", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "U.S., ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1326.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1326%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/u-s-ex-rel-schutte-v-supervalu-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1333", "slug": "gonzalez-v-google-llc", "label": "Gonzalez v. Google LLC", "docketNumber": "21-1333", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Gonzalez v. Google LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1333.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1333%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/gonzalez-v-google-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1397", "slug": "in-re-grand-jury", "label": "In Re Grand Jury", "docketNumber": "21-1397", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "In Re Grand Jury", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1397.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1397%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/in-re-grand-jury" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1436", "slug": "santos-zacaria-v-garland-att-y-gen", "label": "Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "21-1436", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1436.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1436%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/santos-zacaria-v-garland-att-y-gen" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1449", "slug": "glacier-northwest-inc-v-int-l-brotherhood-of-teamsters", "label": "Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters", "docketNumber": "21-1449", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1449.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1449%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/glacier-northwest-inc-v-int-l-brotherhood-of-teamsters" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1450", "slug": "turkiye-halk-bankasi-a-s-v-united-states", "label": "Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States", "docketNumber": "21-1450", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1450.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1450%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/turkiye-halk-bankasi-a-s-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1454", "slug": "oh-adjutant-gen-s-dept-v-flra", "label": "OH Adjutant Gen.'s Dept. v. FLRA", "docketNumber": "21-1454", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "OH Adjutant Gen.'s Dept. v. FLRA", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1454.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1454%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/oh-adjutant-gen-s-dept-v-flra" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1484", "slug": "arizona-v-navajo-nation", "label": "Arizona v. Navajo Nation", "docketNumber": "21-1484", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Arizona v. Navajo Nation", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1484.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1484%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/arizona-v-navajo-nation" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1496", "slug": "twitter-inc-v-taamneh", "label": "Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh", "docketNumber": "21-1496", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1496.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1496%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/twitter-inc-v-taamneh" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1576", "slug": "smith-v-united-states", "label": "Smith v. United States", "docketNumber": "21-1576", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Smith v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1576.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1576%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/smith-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-21-1599", "slug": "karcho-polselli-v-irs", "label": "Karcho Polselli v. IRS", "docketNumber": "21-1599", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Karcho Polselli v. IRS", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1599.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-1599%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/karcho-polselli-v-irs" }, { "id": "scotus-21-376", "slug": "haaland-v-brackeen", "label": "Haaland v. Brackeen", "docketNumber": "21-376", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Haaland v. Brackeen", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-376.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-376%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/haaland-v-brackeen" }, { "id": "scotus-21-432", "slug": "arellano-v-mcdonough", "label": "Arellano v. McDonough", "docketNumber": "21-432", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Arellano v. McDonough", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-432.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-432%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/arellano-v-mcdonough" }, { "id": "scotus-21-442", "slug": "reed-v-goertz", "label": "Reed v. Goertz", "docketNumber": "21-442", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Reed v. Goertz", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-442.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-442%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/reed-v-goertz" }, { "id": "scotus-21-454", "slug": "sackett-v-epa", "label": "Sackett v. EPA", "docketNumber": "21-454", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Sackett v. EPA", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-454.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-454%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/sackett-v-epa" }, { "id": "scotus-21-468", "slug": "national-pork-producers-v-ross", "label": "National Pork Producers v. Ross", "docketNumber": "21-468", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "National Pork Producers v. Ross", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-468.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-468%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/national-pork-producers-v-ross" }, { "id": "scotus-21-476", "slug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "label": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [ "first-amendment", "speech", "public-accommodations" ], "whyTracked": "Free-speech limits on compelling creative services for same-sex weddings.", "caseName": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "status": "decided", "docketId": 66612658, "dateArgued": "2022-12-05", "dateFiled": "2023-06-30", "citations": [ "600 U.S. 570" ], "syllabus": "303 CREATIVE LLC et al. v. ELENIS et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit No. 21\u2013476. Argued December 5, 2022\u2014Decided June 30, 2023 Lorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. But Ms. Smith worries that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to compel her\u2014in violation of the First Amendment\u2014to create web- sites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. To clarify her rights, Ms. Smith fled a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman. CADA prohibits all \u201cpublic accommodations\u201d from denying \u201cthe full and equal enjoyment\u201d of its goods and services to any customer based on his race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, or other statutorily enu- merated trait. Colo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 24\u201334\u2013601(2)(a). The law defnes \u201cpublic accommodation\u201d broadly to include almost every public-facing business in the State. \u00a7 24\u201334\u2013601(1). Either state offcials or private citizens may bring actions to enforce the law. \u00a7\u00a7 24\u201334\u2013306, 24\u201334\u2013 602(1). And a variety of penalties can follow any violation. Before the district court, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: Ms. Smith is \u201cwilling to work with all people regardless of classifcations such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender\u201d and \u201cwill gladly create custom graphics and websites\u201d for clients of any sex- ual orientation; she will not produce content that \u201ccontradicts biblical truth\u201d regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith's belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction; Ms. Smith provides design services that are \u201cexpressive\u201d and her \u201corigi- nal, customized\u201d creations \u201ccontribut[e] to the overall message\u201d her business conveys \u201cthrough the websites\u201d it creates; the wedding web- sites she plans to create \u201cwill be expressive in nature,\u201d will be \u201ccusto- mized and tailored\u201d through close collaboration with individual couples, and will \u201cexpress Ms. Smith's and 303 Creative's message celebrating and promoting\u201d her view of marriage; viewers of Ms. Smith's websites \u201cwill know that the websites are her original artwork;\u201d and \u201c[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.\u201d Page Proof Pending Pub\u2026", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/303-creative-v-elenis.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 10516256, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-476.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-476%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 10049656, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 10049656, "caseName": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "dateFiled": "2023-06-30", "dateArgued": "2022-12-05", "citations": [ "600 U.S. 570" ], "citeCount": 85, "judge": "Neil Gorsuch", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10049656/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/600us1r58_7khn.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 10516256, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/600us1r58_7khn.pdf", "snippet": " PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 600 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 570\u2013640\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 30, 2023\n\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requ", "excerpt": "PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 600 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 570\u2013640\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 30, 2023\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter\n of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\f570 OCTOBER TERM, 2022\n\n Syllabus\n\n 303 CREATIVE LLC et al. v. ELENIS et al.\n\ncertiorari to the united states court of appeals for\n the tenth circuit\n No. 21\u2013476. Argued December 5, 2022\u2014Decided June 30, 2023\nLorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative\n LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. But Ms.\n Smith worries that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimination\n Act to compel her\u2014in violation of the First Amendment\u2014to create web-\n sites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. To clarify her rights,\n Ms. Smith fled a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State\n from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her\n belief\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 9410787, "caseName": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "dateFiled": "2023-06-30", "dateArgued": "2022-12-05", "citations": [ "600 U.S. 570" ], "citeCount": 68, "judge": "Neil Gorsuch", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9410787/303-creative-llc-v-elenis/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9406263, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1250, "authorName": "Neil M. Gorsuch", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\n 303 CREATIVE LLC ET AL. v. ELENIS ET AL.\n\nCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\n THE TENTH CIRCUIT\n\n No. 21\u2013476. Argued December 5, 2022\u2014Decided June 30, 2023\nLorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative\n LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. But\n Ms. Smith worries that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimi-\n nation Act to compel her\u2014in violation of the First Amendment\u2014to cre-\n ate websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. To clarify\n her rights, Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent\n the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages\n that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions be-\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 84012, "caseName": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "dateArgued": "2022-12-05", "durationSeconds": 7314, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/21-476.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/84012/303-creative-llc-et-al-petitioners-v-aubrey-elenis-et-al/" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/303-creative-v-elenis", "holdingAuthor": "Neil M. Gorsuch" }, { "id": "scotus-21-757", "slug": "amgen-inc-v-sanofi", "label": "Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi", "docketNumber": "21-757", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-757.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-757%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/amgen-inc-v-sanofi" }, { "id": "scotus-21-806", "slug": "health-and-hospital-corp-v-talevski", "label": "Health and Hospital Corp. v. Talevski", "docketNumber": "21-806", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Health and Hospital Corp. v. Talevski", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-806.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-806%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/health-and-hospital-corp-v-talevski" }, { "id": "scotus-21-846", "slug": "cruz-v-arizona", "label": "Cruz v. Arizona", "docketNumber": "21-846", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Cruz v. Arizona", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-846.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-846%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/cruz-v-arizona" }, { "id": "scotus-21-857", "slug": "jones-v-hendrix", "label": "Jones v. Hendrix", "docketNumber": "21-857", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Jones v. Hendrix", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-857.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-857%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/jones-v-hendrix" }, { "id": "scotus-21-86", "slug": "axon-enterprise-inc-v-ftc", "label": "Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC", "docketNumber": "21-86", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-86.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-86%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/axon-enterprise-inc-v-ftc" }, { "id": "scotus-21-869", "slug": "andy-warhol-found-inc-v-goldsmith", "label": "Andy Warhol Found., Inc. v. Goldsmith", "docketNumber": "21-869", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Andy Warhol Found., Inc. v. Goldsmith", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-869.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-869%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/andy-warhol-found-inc-v-goldsmith" }, { "id": "scotus-21-887", "slug": "perez-v-sturgis-public-schools", "label": "Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools", "docketNumber": "21-887", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-887.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-887%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/perez-v-sturgis-public-schools" }, { "id": "scotus-21-908", "slug": "bartenwerfer-v-buckley", "label": "Bartenwerfer v. Buckley", "docketNumber": "21-908", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Bartenwerfer v. Buckley", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-908.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-908%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bartenwerfer-v-buckley" }, { "id": "scotus-21-984", "slug": "helix-energy-solutions-v-hewitt", "label": "Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt", "docketNumber": "21-984", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-984.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2221-984%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/helix-energy-solutions-v-hewitt" }, { "id": "scotus-22-10", "slug": "dubin-v-united-states", "label": "Dubin v. United States", "docketNumber": "22-10", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Dubin v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-10.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-10%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/dubin-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-22-105", "slug": "coinbase-inc-v-bielski", "label": "Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski", "docketNumber": "22-105", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-105.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-105%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/coinbase-inc-v-bielski" }, { "id": "scotus-22-138", "slug": "counterman-v-colorado", "label": "Counterman v. Colorado", "docketNumber": "22-138", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Counterman v. Colorado", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-138.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-138%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/counterman-v-colorado" }, { "id": "scotus-22-148", "slug": "jack-daniel-s-properties-inc-v-vip-products", "label": "Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products", "docketNumber": "22-148", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-148.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-148%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/jack-daniel-s-properties-inc-v-vip-products" }, { "id": "scotus-22-166", "slug": "tyler-v-hennepin-county", "label": "Tyler v. Hennepin County", "docketNumber": "22-166", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Tyler v. Hennepin County", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-166.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-166%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/tyler-v-hennepin-county" }, { "id": "scotus-22-174", "slug": "groff-v-dejoy", "label": "Groff v. DeJoy", "docketNumber": "22-174", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Groff v. DeJoy", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-174.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-174%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/groff-v-dejoy" }, { "id": "scotus-22-179", "slug": "united-states-v-hansen", "label": "United States v. Hansen", "docketNumber": "22-179", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "United States v. Hansen", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-179.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-179%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-hansen" }, { "id": "scotus-22-196", "slug": "samia-v-united-states", "label": "Samia v. United States", "docketNumber": "22-196", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Samia v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-196.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-196%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/samia-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-22-200", "slug": "slack-technologies-llc-v-pirani", "label": "Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani", "docketNumber": "22-200", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-200.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-200%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/slack-technologies-llc-v-pirani" }, { "id": "scotus-22-210", "slug": "dupree-v-younger", "label": "Dupree v. Younger", "docketNumber": "22-210", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Dupree v. Younger", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-210.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-210%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/dupree-v-younger" }, { "id": "scotus-22-227", "slug": "lac-du-flambeau-band-v-coughlin", "label": "Lac du Flambeau Band v. Coughlin", "docketNumber": "22-227", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Lac du Flambeau Band v. Coughlin", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-227.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-227%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lac-du-flambeau-band-v-coughlin" }, { "id": "scotus-22-23", "slug": "pugin-v-garland", "label": "Pugin v. Garland", "docketNumber": "22-23", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Pugin v. Garland", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-23.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-23%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/pugin-v-garland" }, { "id": "scotus-22-381", "slug": "yegiazaryan-v-smagin", "label": "Yegiazaryan v. Smagin", "docketNumber": "22-381", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Yegiazaryan v. Smagin", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-381.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-381%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/yegiazaryan-v-smagin" }, { "id": "scotus-22-49", "slug": "lora-v-united-states", "label": "Lora v. United States", "docketNumber": "22-49", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Lora v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-49.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-49%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lora-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-22-506", "slug": "biden-v-nebraska", "label": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [ "administrative-law", "education", "student-loans" ], "whyTracked": "Struck down the Biden administration\u2019s broad student-loan forgiveness plan.", "caseName": "Biden v. Nebraska", "status": "decided", "docketId": 66908102, "dateArgued": "2023-02-28", "dateFiled": "2023-06-30", "citations": [ "600 U.S. 477" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/biden-v-nebraska.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 9406262, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-506.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-506%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 9410786, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 9410786, "caseName": "Biden v. Nebraska", "dateFiled": "2023-06-30", "dateArgued": "2023-02-28", "citations": [ "600 U.S. 477" ], "citeCount": 71, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9410786/biden-v-nebraska/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9406262, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\n BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.\n v. NEBRASKA ET AL.\n\n CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES\n COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT\n\n No. 22\u2013506. Argued February 28, 2023\u2014Decided June 30, 2023\nTitle IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Education Act) governs\n federal financial aid mechanisms, including student loans. 20 U. S. C.\n \u00a71070 (a). The Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to cancel or\n reduce loans in certain limited circumstances. The Secretary may can-\n cel a set amount of loans held by some public servants, see \u00a7\u00a71078\u201310,\n 1087j, 1087ee. He may also forgive the loans of borrowers who have\n died or become \u201cpermanently and totally disabled,\u201d \u00a71087(a)(1); bor-\n rowers who are ban\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 10049655, "caseName": "Biden v. Nebraska", "dateFiled": "2023-06-30", "dateArgued": "2023-02-28", "citations": [ "600 U.S. 477" ], "citeCount": 50, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10049655/biden-v-nebraska/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/600us1r56_1o13.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 10516255, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/600us1r56_1o13.pdf", "snippet": " PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 600 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 477\u2013550\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 30, 2023\n\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requ", "excerpt": "PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 600 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 477\u2013550\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 30, 2023\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter\n of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\f OCTOBER TERM, 2022 477\n\n Syllabus\n\n BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,\n et al. v. NEBRASKA et al.\n\n certiorari before judgment to the united states\n court of appeals for the eighth circuit\n No. 22\u2013506. Argued February 28, 2023\u2014Decided June 30, 2023\nTitle IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Education Act) governs\n federal fnancial aid mechanisms, including student loans. 20 U. S. C.\n \u00a7 1070 (a). The Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to cancel or\n reduce loans in certain limited circumstances. The Secretary may can-\n cel a set amount of loans held by some public servants, see \u00a7\u00a7 1078\u201310,\n 1087j, 1087ee. He may also forgive the loans of borrowers who have\n died or become \u201cpermanently and total\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 85426, "caseName": "Biden v. Nebraska", "dateArgued": "2023-02-28", "durationSeconds": 6315, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/22-506.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/85426/joseph-r-biden-president-of-the-united-states-et-al-petitioners-v/" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/biden-v-nebraska", "holdingAuthor": "John G. Roberts Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-22-535", "slug": "dept-of-education-v-brown", "label": "Dept. of Education v. Brown", "docketNumber": "22-535", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Dept. of Education v. Brown", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-535.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-535%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/dept-of-education-v-brown" }, { "id": "scotus-22-58", "slug": "united-states-v-texas-2", "label": "United States v. Texas", "docketNumber": "22-58", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "United States v. Texas", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-58.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-58%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-texas-2" }, { "id": "scotus-22-96", "slug": "financial-oversight-board-v-cpi", "label": "Financial Oversight Board v. CPI", "docketNumber": "22-96", "term": "OT 2022", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2022.", "caseName": "Financial Oversight Board v. CPI", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-96.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-96%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/financial-oversight-board-v-cpi" }, { "id": "scotus-22-1008", "slug": "corner-post-inc-v-bd-of-governors-frs", "label": "Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, FRS", "docketNumber": "22-1008", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, FRS", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1008.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-1008%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/corner-post-inc-v-bd-of-governors-frs" }, { "id": "scotus-22-1025", "slug": "gonzalez-v-trevino", "label": "Gonzalez v. Trevino", "docketNumber": "22-1025", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Gonzalez v. Trevino", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1025.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-1025%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/gonzalez-v-trevino" }, { "id": "scotus-22-1074", "slug": "sheetz-v-county-of-el-dorado", "label": "Sheetz v. County of El Dorado", "docketNumber": "22-1074", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Sheetz v. County of El Dorado", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1074.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-1074%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/sheetz-v-county-of-el-dorado" }, { "id": "scotus-22-1078", "slug": "warner-chappell-music-inc-v-nealy", "label": "Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy", "docketNumber": "22-1078", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1078.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-1078%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/warner-chappell-music-inc-v-nealy" }, { "id": "scotus-22-1079", "slug": "truck-insurance-exchange-v-kaiser-gypsum-co-inc", "label": "Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc.", "docketNumber": "22-1079", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1079.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-1079%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/truck-insurance-exchange-v-kaiser-gypsum-co-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-22-1165", "slug": "macquarie-infrastructure-corp-v-moab-partners-l-p", "label": "Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P.", "docketNumber": "22-1165", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1165.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-1165%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/macquarie-infrastructure-corp-v-moab-partners-l-p" }, { "id": "scotus-22-1178", "slug": "fbi-v-fikre", "label": "FBI v. Fikre", "docketNumber": "22-1178", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "FBI v. Fikre", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1178.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-1178%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fbi-v-fikre" }, { "id": "scotus-22-1218", "slug": "smith-v-spizzirri", "label": "Smith v. Spizzirri", "docketNumber": "22-1218", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Smith v. Spizzirri", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1218.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-1218%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/smith-v-spizzirri" }, { "id": "scotus-22-1219", "slug": "relentless-inc-v-dept-of-commerce", "label": "Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce", "docketNumber": "22-1219", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1219.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-1219%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/relentless-inc-v-dept-of-commerce" }, { "id": "scotus-22-1238", "slug": "united-states-trustee-v-john-q-hammons-fall-2006-llc", "label": "United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC", "docketNumber": "22-1238", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1238.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-1238%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-trustee-v-john-q-hammons-fall-2006-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-22-193", "slug": "muldrow-v-st-louis", "label": "Muldrow v. St. Louis", "docketNumber": "22-193", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Muldrow v. St. Louis", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-193.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-193%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/muldrow-v-st-louis" }, { "id": "scotus-22-277", "slug": "moody-v-netchoice-llc", "label": "Moody v. NetChoice, LLC", "docketNumber": "22-277", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Moody v. NetChoice, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-277.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-277%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/moody-v-netchoice-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-22-324", "slug": "o-connor-ratcliff-v-garnier", "label": "O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier", "docketNumber": "22-324", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-324.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-324%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/o-connor-ratcliff-v-garnier" }, { "id": "scotus-22-340", "slug": "pulsifer-v-united-states", "label": "Pulsifer v. United States", "docketNumber": "22-340", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Pulsifer v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-340.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-340%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/pulsifer-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-22-429", "slug": "acheson-hotels-llc-v-laufer", "label": "Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer", "docketNumber": "22-429", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-429.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-429%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/acheson-hotels-llc-v-laufer" }, { "id": "scotus-22-448", "slug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "label": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [ "administrative-law", "appropriations", "agencies" ], "whyTracked": "Upheld the CFPB\u2019s funding structure against a separation-of-powers challenge.", "caseName": "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.", "status": "decided", "docketId": 67851464, "dateArgued": "2023-10-03", "dateFiled": "2024-05-16", "citations": [ "601 U.S. 416" ], "syllabus": "CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU et al. v. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the \ue405fth circuit No. 22\u2013448. Argued October 3, 2023\u2014Decided May 16, 2024 The Constitution gives Congress control over the public fsc subject to the command that \u201c[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.\u201d Art. I, \u00a7 9, cl. 7. For most federal agencies, Congress provides funding through annual appro- priations. For the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, however, Congress provided a standing source of funding outside the ordinary annual appropriations process. Specifcally, Congress authorized the Bureau to draw from the Federal Reserve System an amount that its Director deems \u201creasonably necessary to carry out\u201d the Bureau's duties, subject only to an infation-adjusted cap. 12 U. S. C. \u00a7\u00a7 5497(a)(1), (2). In this case, several trade associations representing payday lenders and credit-access businesses challenged regulations issued by the Bureau pertaining to high-interest consumer loans on statutory and constitu- tional grounds. As relevant here, the Fifth Circuit accepted the associ- ations' argument that the Bureau's funding mechanism violates the Ap- propriations Clause. Held: Congress' statutory authorization allowing the Bureau to draw money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out the Bu- reau's duties satisfes the Appropriations Clause. Pp. 424\u2013438, 441. (a) Under the Appropriations Clause, an appropriation is a law that authorizes expenditures from a specifed source of public money for des- ignated purposes. Pp. 424\u2013435. (1) The Bureau's funding is \u201cdrawn from the Treasury\u201d and is therefore subject to the requirements of the Appropriations Clause. The issue is whether the Bureau's funding mechanism constitutes an \u201cAppropriatio[n] made by Law.\u201d The Court concludes that the answer is yes based on the Constitution's text, the history against which that text was enacted, and congressional practice immediately following rati- fcation. Pp. 425\u2013434. (i) The Constitution's use of the term \u201cappropriation\u201d provides im- portant insight into its meaning. The Appropriations Clause itself specifes that an appropriation must authorize withdrawals from a par- ticular source, the \u201cTreasury.\u201d And, the proviso limiting Congress' Page Proof Pending Publication Cite as: 601 U. S. 416 (2024) 417 Syllabus power to \u201craise and support Arm\u2026", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/cfpb-v-cfsa.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 9973155, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-448.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-448%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 9506542, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 9506542, "caseName": "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.", "dateFiled": "2024-05-16", "dateArgued": "2023-10-03", "citations": [ "601 U.S. 416" ], "citeCount": 46, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9506542/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-community-financial-services-assn/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us2r21_db8e.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9973155, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us2r21_db8e.pdf", "snippet": " PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 601 U. S. Part 2\n Pages 416\u2013471\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n May 16, 2024\n\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requ", "excerpt": "PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 601 U. S. Part 2\n Pages 416\u2013471\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n May 16, 2024\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter\n of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\f416 OCTOBER TERM, 2023\n\n Syllabus\n\n CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU\n et al. v. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES\n ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., et al.\ncertiorari to the united states court of appeals for\n the \ue405fth circuit\n No. 22\u2013448. Argued October 3, 2023\u2014Decided May 16, 2024\nThe Constitution gives Congress control over the public fsc subject to the\n command that \u201c[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in\n Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.\u201d Art. I, \u00a7 9, cl. 7. For\n most federal agencies, Congress provides funding through annual appro-\n priations. For the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, however,\n Congress provided a standing source of funding outside the ordinary\n annual appropriati\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 9502726, "caseName": "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.", "dateFiled": "2024-05-16", "dateArgued": "2023-10-03", "citations": [ "601 U.S. 416" ], "citeCount": 7, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9502726/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-community-financial-services-assn/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-448_o7jp.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9969339, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-448_o7jp.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\n CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU\n ET AL. v. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES\n ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., ET AL.\n\nCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\n THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n No. 22\u2013448. Argued October 3, 2023\u2014Decided May 16, 2024\nThe Constitution gives Congress control over the public fisc subject to\n the command that \u201c[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but\n in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.\u201d Art. I, \u00a79, cl. 7. For\n most federal agencies, Congress provides funding through annual ap-\n propriations. For the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, how-\n ever, Congress provided a standing source of funding outside the ordi-\n nary annual appropriations process. Specifically, Congress author\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 10600094, "caseName": "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.", "dateFiled": "2024-05-16", "dateArgued": "2023-10-03", "citations": [ "601 U.S. 416" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Clarence Thomas", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10600094/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-community-financial-services-assn/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us2r21_7648.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 11066682, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 3200, "authorName": "Clarence Thomas", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us2r21_7648.pdf", "snippet": " PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 601 U. S. Part 2\n Pages 416\u2013471\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n May 16, 2024\n\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requ", "excerpt": "PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 601 U. S. Part 2\n Pages 416\u2013471\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n May 16, 2024\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter\n of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\f416 OCTOBER TERM, 2023\n\n Syllabus\n\n CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU\n et al. v. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES\n ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., et al.\ncertiorari to the united states court of appeals for\n the \ue405fth circuit\n No. 22\u2013448. Argued October 3, 2023\u2014Decided May 16, 2024\nThe Constitution gives Congress control over the public fsc subject to the\n command that \u201c[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in\n Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.\u201d Art. I, \u00a7 9, cl. 7. For\n most federal agencies, Congress provides funding through annual appro-\n priations. For the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, however,\n Congress provided a standing source of funding outside the ordinary\n annual appropriati\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 88363, "caseName": "CFPB v. Com. Fin. Services Assn.", "dateArgued": "2023-10-03", "durationSeconds": 5657, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/22-448.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/88363/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-et-al-petitioners-v-community/", "snippet": "General Prelogar. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Fifth Circuit's decision in this case is the first time any Court in our nation's history has held that Congress violated the Appropriations Clause by enacting a statute providing funding. This Court should uphold the CFPB's funding statute because it is the first time in our nation's history that Congress has violated the appr\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/cfpb-v-cfsa", "holdingAuthor": "Clarence Thomas" }, { "id": "scotus-22-451", "slug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "label": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [ "administrative-law", "chevron", "agencies" ], "whyTracked": "Overturned Chevron deference; resets how courts review agency interpretations of statutes.", "caseName": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "status": "decided", "docketId": 68166979, "dateArgued": "2024-01-17", "dateFiled": "2024-06-28", "citations": [ "603 U.S. 369" ], "syllabus": "LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES et al. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 22\u2013451. Argued January 17, 2024\u2014Decided June 28, 2024* The Court granted certiorari in these cases limited to the question whether Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, should be overruled or clarifed. Under the Chevron doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to \u201cpermissible\u201d agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer\u2014even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently. Id., at 843. In each case below, the reviewing courts applied Chevron's framework to resolve in favor of the Government challenges by petitioners to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U. S. C. \u00a7 1801 et seq., which incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. \u00a7 551 et seq. Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpre- tation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled. Pp. 384\u2013413. (a) Article III of the Constitution assigns to the Federal Judiciary the responsibility and power to adjudicate \u201cCases\u201d and \u201cControversies\u201d\u2014 concrete disputes with consequences for the parties involved. The Framers appreciated that the laws judges would necessarily apply in resolving those disputes would not always be clear, but envisioned that the fnal \u201cinterpretation of the laws\u201d would be \u201cthe proper and peculiar province of the courts.\u201d The Federalist No. 78, p. 525 (A. Hamilton). As", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/loper-bright-v-raimondo.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 11066629, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-451.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-451%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 10600041, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 10600041, "caseName": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "dateFiled": "2024-06-28", "dateArgued": "2024-01-17", "citations": [ "603 U.S. 369" ], "citeCount": 458, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10600041/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/603us1r54_o7jp.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 11066629, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/603us1r54_o7jp.pdf", "snippet": " PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 603 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 369\u2013479\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 28, 2024\n\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are ", "excerpt": "PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 603 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 369\u2013479\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 28, 2024\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter\n of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\f OCTOBER TERM, 2023 369\n\n Syllabus\n\nLOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES et al. v. RAIMONDO,\n SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, et al.\n\ncertiorari to the united states court of appeals for\n the district of columbia circuit\n No. 22\u2013451. Argued January 17, 2024\u2014Decided June 28, 2024*\nThe Court granted certiorari in these cases limited to the question\n whether Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,\n Inc., 467 U. S. 837 , should be overruled or clarifed. Under the Chevron\n doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to \u201cpermissible\u201d\n agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer\u2014even\n when a reviewing court reads the statute differently. Id., at 843 . In\n each case below, the review\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 9986254, "caseName": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "dateFiled": "2024-06-28", "dateArgued": "2024-01-17", "citations": [ "603 U.S. 369" ], "citeCount": 353, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9986254/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 10452863, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\n LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO,\n SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL.\n\nCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\n THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n No. 22\u2013451. Argued January 17, 2024\u2014Decided June 28, 2024*\nThe Court granted certiorari in these cases limited to the question\n whether Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,\n Inc., 467 U. S. 837 , should be overruled or clarified. Under the Chev-\n ron doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to \u201cpermis-\n sible\u201d agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies adminis-\n ter\u2014even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently. Id., at\n 843 . In each case below, the reviewing courts applied Chevron\u2019s frame-\n work t\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 90179, "caseName": "Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, Sec. of Comm.", "dateArgued": "2024-01-17", "durationSeconds": 4573, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/22-451.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/90179/loper-bright-enterprises-et-al-petitioners-v-gina-raimondo-secretary/", "snippet": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, this case well illustrates the real-world cost of Chevron, which do not fall exclusively on the Chevrons of the world, but injure small businesses and individuals as well. Commercial fishing is hard, space onboard vessels is tight, and margins are tighter still. Therefore, for my clients, having to carry Federal observers onboard is a burden, but ha\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/loper-bright-v-raimondo", "holdingAuthor": "John G. Roberts Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-22-500", "slug": "great-lakes-insurance-se-v-raiders-retreat-realty-co-llc", "label": "Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC", "docketNumber": "22-500", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-500.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-500%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/great-lakes-insurance-se-v-raiders-retreat-realty-co-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-22-529", "slug": "cantero-v-bank-of-america-n-a", "label": "Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A.", "docketNumber": "22-529", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-529.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-529%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/cantero-v-bank-of-america-n-a" }, { "id": "scotus-22-555", "slug": "netchoice-llc-v-paxton", "label": "NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton", "docketNumber": "22-555", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-555.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-555%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/netchoice-llc-v-paxton" }, { "id": "scotus-22-585", "slug": "culley-v-marshall", "label": "Culley v. Marshall", "docketNumber": "22-585", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Culley v. Marshall", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-585.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-585%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/culley-v-marshall" }, { "id": "scotus-22-611", "slug": "lindke-v-freed", "label": "Lindke v. Freed", "docketNumber": "22-611", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Lindke v. Freed", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-611.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-611%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lindke-v-freed" }, { "id": "scotus-22-6389", "slug": "brown-v-united-states", "label": "Brown v. United States", "docketNumber": "22-6389", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Brown v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-6389.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-6389%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/brown-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-22-660", "slug": "murray-v-ubs-securities-llc", "label": "Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC", "docketNumber": "22-660", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-660.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-660%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/murray-v-ubs-securities-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-22-666", "slug": "wilkinson-v-garland-att-y-gen", "label": "Wilkinson v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "22-666", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Wilkinson v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-666.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-666%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/wilkinson-v-garland-att-y-gen" }, { "id": "scotus-22-674", "slug": "campos-chaves-v-garland-att-y-gen", "label": "Campos-Chaves v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "22-674", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Campos-Chaves v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-674.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-674%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/campos-chaves-v-garland-att-y-gen" }, { "id": "scotus-22-704", "slug": "vidal-under-sec-of-comm-v-elster", "label": "Vidal, Under Sec. of Comm. v. Elster", "docketNumber": "22-704", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Vidal, Under Sec. of Comm. v. Elster", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-704.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-704%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/vidal-under-sec-of-comm-v-elster" }, { "id": "scotus-22-721", "slug": "mcelrath-v-georgia", "label": "McElrath v. Georgia", "docketNumber": "22-721", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "McElrath v. Georgia", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-721.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-721%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mcelrath-v-georgia" }, { "id": "scotus-22-7386", "slug": "mcintosh-v-united-states", "label": "McIntosh v. United States", "docketNumber": "22-7386", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "McIntosh v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-7386.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-7386%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mcintosh-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-22-800", "slug": "moore-v-united-states", "label": "Moore v. United States", "docketNumber": "22-800", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Moore v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-800.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-800%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/moore-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-22-807", "slug": "alexander-v-sc-conference-of-naacp", "label": "Alexander v. SC Conference of NAACP", "docketNumber": "22-807", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Alexander v. SC Conference of NAACP", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-807.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-807%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/alexander-v-sc-conference-of-naacp" }, { "id": "scotus-22-842", "slug": "nra-v-vullo", "label": "NRA v. Vullo", "docketNumber": "22-842", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "NRA v. Vullo", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-842.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-842%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nra-v-vullo" }, { "id": "scotus-22-846", "slug": "dept-of-agric-rural-dev-v-kirtz", "label": "Dept. of Agric. Rural Dev. v. Kirtz", "docketNumber": "22-846", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Dept. of Agric. Rural Dev. v. Kirtz", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-846.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-846%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/dept-of-agric-rural-dev-v-kirtz" }, { "id": "scotus-22-859", "slug": "sec-v-jarkesy", "label": "SEC v. Jarkesy", "docketNumber": "22-859", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "SEC v. Jarkesy", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-859.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-859%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/sec-v-jarkesy" }, { "id": "scotus-22-888", "slug": "rudisill-v-mcdonough-sec-of-va", "label": "Rudisill v. McDonough, Sec. of VA", "docketNumber": "22-888", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Rudisill v. McDonough, Sec. of VA", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-888.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-888%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/rudisill-v-mcdonough-sec-of-va" }, { "id": "scotus-22-899", "slug": "smith-v-arizona", "label": "Smith v. Arizona", "docketNumber": "22-899", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Smith v. Arizona", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-899.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-899%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/smith-v-arizona" }, { "id": "scotus-22-913", "slug": "devillier-v-texas", "label": "Devillier v. Texas", "docketNumber": "22-913", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Devillier v. Texas", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-913.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-913%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/devillier-v-texas" }, { "id": "scotus-22-915", "slug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "label": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [ "second-amendment", "guns", "domestic-violence" ], "whyTracked": "Upheld disarmament of people under domestic-violence restraining orders after Bruen.", "caseName": "United States v. Rahimi", "status": "decided", "docketId": 67986093, "dateArgued": "2023-11-07", "dateFiled": "2024-06-21", "citations": [ "602 U.S. 680" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/united-states-v-rahimi.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 10145945, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-915.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-915%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 9679332, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 9679332, "caseName": "United States v. Rahimi", "dateFiled": "2024-06-21", "dateArgued": "2023-11-07", "citations": [ "602 U.S. 680" ], "citeCount": 446, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9679332/united-states-v-rahimi/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 10145945, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\n UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI\n\nCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\n THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n No. 22\u2013915. Argued November 7, 2023\u2014Decided June 21, 2024\nRespondent Zackey Rahimi was indicted under 18 U. S. C. \u00a7922 (g)(8), a\n federal statute that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence\n restraining order from possessing a firearm. A prosecution under Sec-\n tion 922(g)(8) may proceed only if the restraining order meets certain\n statutory criteria. In particular, the order must either contain a find-\n ing that the defendant \u201crepresents a credible threat to the physical\n safety\u201d of his intimate partner or his or his partner\u2019s child,\n \u00a7922(g)(8)(C)(i), or \u201cby its terms explicitly prohibit[ ] the use,\u201d at-\n te\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 10600058, "caseName": "United States v. Rahimi", "dateFiled": "2024-06-21", "dateArgued": "2023-11-07", "citations": [ "602 U.S. 680" ], "citeCount": 375, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10600058/united-states-v-rahimi/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/602us1r43_p860.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 11066646, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/602us1r43_p860.pdf", "snippet": " PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 602 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 680\u2013778\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 21, 2024\n\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are ", "excerpt": "PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 602 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 680\u2013778\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 21, 2024\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter\n of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\f680 OCTOBER TERM, 2023\n\n Syllabus\n\n UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI\n\ncertiorari to the united states court of appeals for\n the \ue405fth circuit\n No. 22\u2013915. Argued November 7, 2023\u2014Decided June 21, 2024\nRespondent Zackey Rahimi was indicted under 18 U. S. C. \u00a7 922 (g)(8), a\n federal statute that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence\n restraining order from possessing a frearm. A prosecution under Sec-\n tion 922(g)(8) may proceed only if the restraining order meets certain\n statutory criteria. In particular, the order must either contain a fnd-\n ing that the defendant \u201crepresents a credible threat to the physical\n safety\u201d of his intimate partner or his or his partner's child, \u00a7 922(g)\n (8)(C)(i), or \u201cby\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 9824344, "caseName": "United States v. Rahimi Revisions: 6/25/24", "dateFiled": "2024-06-21", "dateArgued": "2023-11-07", "citations": [ "602 U.S. 680" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9824344/united-states-v-rahimi-revisions-62524/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915new_ihdk.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 10290956, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915new_ihdk.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\n UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI\n\nCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\n THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n No. 22\u2013915. Argued November 7, 2023\u2014Decided June 21, 2024\nRespondent Zackey Rahimi was indicted under 18 U. S. C. \u00a7922 (g)(8), a\n federal statute that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence\n restraining order from possessing a firearm. A prosecution under Sec-\n tion 922(g)(8) may proceed only if the restraining order meets certain\n statutory criteria. In particular, the order must either contain a find-\n ing that the defendant \u201crepresents a credible threat to the physical\n safety\u201d of his intimate partner or his or his partner\u2019s child,\n \u00a7922(g)(8)(C)(i), or \u201cby its terms explicitly prohibit[ ] the use,\u201d at-\n te\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 88815, "caseName": "United States v. Rahimi", "dateArgued": "2023-11-07", "durationSeconds": 5561, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/22-915.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/88815/united-states-petitioner-v-zackey-rahimi/", "snippet": "We'll hear argument this morning in Case 22-915, United States v. Rahimi. General Prologar. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Guns and domestic abuse are a deadly combination. As this Court has said, all too often the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun. Armed abusers also pose grave danger to police officers responding to domestic viol\u2026" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-rahimi", "holdingAuthor": "John G. Roberts Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-22-976", "slug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-cargill", "label": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Cargill", "docketNumber": "22-976", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Cargill", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-976.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-976%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/garland-att-y-gen-v-cargill" }, { "id": "scotus-22-982", "slug": "thornell-v-jones", "label": "Thornell v. Jones", "docketNumber": "22-982", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Thornell v. Jones", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-982.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-982%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/thornell-v-jones" }, { "id": "scotus-23-108", "slug": "snyder-v-united-states", "label": "Snyder v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-108", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Snyder v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-108.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-108%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/snyder-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-23-124", "slug": "harrington-v-purdue-pharma-l-p", "label": "Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.", "docketNumber": "23-124", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-124.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-124%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/harrington-v-purdue-pharma-l-p" }, { "id": "scotus-23-14", "slug": "diaz-v-united-states", "label": "Diaz v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-14", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Diaz v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-14.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-14%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/diaz-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-23-146", "slug": "connelly-v-united-states", "label": "Connelly v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-146", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Connelly v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-146.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-146%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/connelly-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-23-175", "slug": "city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson", "label": "City of Grants Pass v. Johnson", "docketNumber": "23-175", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "City of Grants Pass v. Johnson", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-175.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-175%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson" }, { "id": "scotus-23-21", "slug": "harrow-v-dept-of-defense", "label": "Harrow v. Dept. of Defense", "docketNumber": "23-21", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Harrow v. Dept. of Defense", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-21.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-21%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/harrow-v-dept-of-defense" }, { "id": "scotus-23-235", "slug": "fda-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine", "label": "FDA v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine", "docketNumber": "23-235", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "FDA v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-235.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-235%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fda-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine" }, { "id": "scotus-23-250", "slug": "becerra-sec-of-h-hs-v-san-carlos-apache-tribe", "label": "Becerra, Sec. of H&HS v. San Carlos Apache Tribe", "docketNumber": "23-250", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Becerra, Sec. of H&HS v. San Carlos Apache Tribe", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-250.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-250%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/becerra-sec-of-h-hs-v-san-carlos-apache-tribe" }, { "id": "scotus-23-3", "slug": "coinbase-inc-v-suski", "label": "Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski", "docketNumber": "23-3", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-3.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-3%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/coinbase-inc-v-suski" }, { "id": "scotus-23-334", "slug": "dept-of-state-v-munoz", "label": "Dept. of State v. Munoz", "docketNumber": "23-334", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Dept. of State v. Munoz", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-334.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-334%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/dept-of-state-v-munoz" }, { "id": "scotus-23-367", "slug": "starbucks-corp-v-mckinney", "label": "Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney", "docketNumber": "23-367", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-367.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-367%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/starbucks-corp-v-mckinney" }, { "id": "scotus-23-370", "slug": "erlinger-v-united-states", "label": "Erlinger v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-370", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Erlinger v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-370.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-370%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/erlinger-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-23-411", "slug": "murthy-surgeon-gen-v-missouri", "label": "Murthy, Surgeon Gen. v. Missouri", "docketNumber": "23-411", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Murthy, Surgeon Gen. v. Missouri", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-411.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-411%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/murthy-surgeon-gen-v-missouri" }, { "id": "scotus-23-50", "slug": "chiaverini-v-city-of-napoleon", "label": "Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon", "docketNumber": "23-50", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-50.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-50%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/chiaverini-v-city-of-napoleon" }, { "id": "scotus-23-51", "slug": "bissonnette-v-lepage-bakeries-park-st-llc", "label": "Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC", "docketNumber": "23-51", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-51.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-51%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bissonnette-v-lepage-bakeries-park-st-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-23-5572", "slug": "fischer-v-united-states", "label": "Fischer v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-5572", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Fischer v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-5572.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-5572%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fischer-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-23-719", "slug": "trump-v-anderson", "label": "Trump v. Anderson", "docketNumber": "23-719", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [ "elections", "presidency", "fourteenth-amendment" ], "whyTracked": "Limits on state authority to disqualify presidential candidates under Section 3.", "caseName": "Trump v. Anderson", "status": "decided", "docketId": 68237529, "dateArgued": "2024-02-08", "dateFiled": "2024-03-04", "citations": [ "601 U.S. 100" ], "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/trump-v-anderson.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 9947252, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-719%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 9480639, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 9480639, "caseName": "Trump v. Anderson", "dateFiled": "2024-03-04", "dateArgued": "2024-02-08", "citations": [ "601 U.S. 100" ], "citeCount": 12, "judge": "Per Curiam", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9480639/trump-v-anderson/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9947252, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 1\n\n Per Curiam\n\n NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the\n United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of\n Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 1\n\n Per Curiam\n\n NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the\n United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of\n Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n _________________\n\n No. 23\u2013719\n _________________\n\n DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v.\n NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL.\n ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT\n OF COLORADO\n [March 4, 2024]\n\n PER CURIAM.\n A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the\nFourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits for-\nmer President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential\nnomination of the Republican Party in this year\u2019s election,\nfrom becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme\nCourt agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado\nsecretary of state to exclude the former President from the\nRepublican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any\nwrite-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.\n Former President Trump challenges that decision on sev-\neral grounds. Because the Constitution\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 10600110, "caseName": "Trump v. Anderson", "dateFiled": "2024-03-04", "dateArgued": "2024-02-08", "citations": [ "601 U.S. 100" ], "citeCount": 3, "judge": "Per Curiam", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10600110/trump-v-anderson/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us1r06_a86c.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 11066698, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/601us1r06_a86c.pdf", "snippet": " PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 601 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 100\u2013123\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n March 4, 2024\n\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requ", "excerpt": "PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 601 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 100\u2013123\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n March 4, 2024\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter\n of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\f100 OCTOBER TERM, 2023\n\n Syllabus\n\n TRUMP v. ANDERSON et al.\n certiorari to the supreme court of colorado\n No. 23\u2013719. Argued February 8, 2024\u2014Decided March 4, 2024\nSix Colorado voters (respondents here) fled a petition in Colorado state\n court against former President Donald J. Trump and Colorado Secretary\n of State Jena Griswold, contending that Section 3 of the Fourteenth\n Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Trump, who\n seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year's\n election, from becoming President again. Section 3 provides:\n \u201cNo person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or\n elector of President and Vice President, or hold any offce, civil o\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 9484378, "caseName": "Trump v. Anderson", "dateFiled": "2024-03-04", "dateArgued": "2024-02-08", "citations": [ "601 U.S. 100" ], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Per Curiam", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9484378/trump-v-anderson/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 9950991, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 1\n\n Per Curiam\n\n NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the\n United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of\n Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 1\n\n Per Curiam\n\n NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the\n United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of\n Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n _________________\n\n No. 23\u2013719\n _________________\n\n DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v.\n NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL.\n ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT\n OF COLORADO\n [March 4, 2024]\n\n PER CURIAM.\n A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the\nFourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits for-\nmer President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential\nnomination of the Republican Party in this year\u2019s election,\nfrom becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme\nCourt agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado\nsecretary of state to exclude the former President from the\nRepublican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any\nwrite-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.\n Former President Trump challenges that decision on sev-\neral grounds. Because the Constitution\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 90652, "caseName": "Trump v. Anderson", "dateArgued": "2024-02-08", "durationSeconds": 6651, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/23-719.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/90652/donald-j-trump-petitioner-v-norma-anderson-et-al/" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/trump-v-anderson", "holdingAuthor": "Per Curiam" }, { "id": "scotus-23-726", "slug": "moyle-v-united-states", "label": "Moyle v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-726", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2023.", "caseName": "Moyle v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-726.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-726%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/moyle-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-23-939", "slug": "trump-v-united-states", "label": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "term": "OT 2023", "topicTags": [ "executive-power", "criminal-law", "presidency" ], "whyTracked": "Presidential immunity for official acts; reshapes accountability for former presidents.", "caseName": "Trump v. United States", "status": "decided", "docketId": 68472798, "dateArgued": "2024-04-25", "dateFiled": "2024-07-01", "citations": [ "603 U.S. 593" ], "syllabus": "NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/trump-v-united-states.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 10453795, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr." } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-939.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-939%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 9987186, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 9987186, "caseName": "Trump v. United States", "dateFiled": "2024-07-01", "dateArgued": "2024-04-25", "citations": [ "603 U.S. 593" ], "citeCount": 43, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9987186/trump-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 10453795, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\n TRUMP v. UNITED STATES\n\nCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\n THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n No. 23\u2013939. Argued April 25, 2024\u2014Decided July 1, 2024\n\nA federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four\n counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the\n November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing that\n election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false\n claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certi-\n fying of the election results. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment\n based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute\n immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed with\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 10600038, "caseName": "Trump v. United States", "dateFiled": "2024-07-01", "dateArgued": "2024-04-25", "citations": [ "603 U.S. 593" ], "citeCount": 32, "judge": "John G. Roberts", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10600038/trump-v-united-states/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/603us1r57_6k47.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 11066626, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 2738, "authorName": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/603us1r57_6k47.pdf", "snippet": " PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 603 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 593\u2013706\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n July 1, 2024\n\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requ", "excerpt": "PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 603 U. S. Part 1\n Pages 593\u2013706\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n July 1, 2024\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter\n of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\f OCTOBER TERM, 2023 593\n\n Syllabus\n\n TRUMP v. UNITED STATES\n\ncertiorari to the united states court of appeals for\n the district of columbia circuit\n No. 23\u2013939. Argued April 25, 2024\u2014Decided July 1, 2024\nA federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four\n counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the\n November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing that\n election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false\n claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certify-\n ing of the election results. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment\n based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute\n immunity from\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 91794, "caseName": "Trump v. United States", "dateArgued": "2024-04-25", "durationSeconds": 8208, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/23-939.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/91794/donald-j-trump-petitioner-v-united-states/" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/trump-v-united-states", "holdingAuthor": "John G. Roberts Jr." }, { "id": "scotus-22-7466", "slug": "glossip-v-oklahoma", "label": "Glossip v. Oklahoma", "docketNumber": "22-7466", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Glossip v. Oklahoma", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-7466.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2222-7466%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/glossip-v-oklahoma" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1002", "slug": "hewitt-v-united-states", "label": "Hewitt v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-1002", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Hewitt v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1002.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1002%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hewitt-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1007", "slug": "cunningham-v-cornell-university", "label": "Cunningham v. Cornell University", "docketNumber": "23-1007", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Cunningham v. Cornell University", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1007.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1007%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/cunningham-v-cornell-university" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1038", "slug": "fda-v-wages-and-white-lion", "label": "FDA v. Wages and White Lion", "docketNumber": "23-1038", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "FDA v. Wages and White Lion", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1038.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1038%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fda-v-wages-and-white-lion" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1039", "slug": "ames-v-oh-dept-of-youth-services", "label": "Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services", "docketNumber": "23-1039", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1039.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1039%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/ames-v-oh-dept-of-youth-services" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1067", "slug": "oklahoma-v-epa", "label": "Oklahoma v. EPA", "docketNumber": "23-1067", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Oklahoma v. EPA", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1067.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1067%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/oklahoma-v-epa" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1095", "slug": "thompson-v-united-states", "label": "Thompson v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-1095", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Thompson v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1095.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1095%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/thompson-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1122", "slug": "free-speech-coalition-v-paxton", "label": "Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton", "docketNumber": "23-1122", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1122.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1122%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/free-speech-coalition-v-paxton" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1127", "slug": "wisconsin-bell-inc-v-u-s-ex-rel-heath", "label": "Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. U.S., ex rel. Heath", "docketNumber": "23-1127", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. U.S., ex rel. Heath", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1127.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1127%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/wisconsin-bell-inc-v-u-s-ex-rel-heath" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1141", "slug": "smith-wesson-brands-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos", "label": "Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos", "docketNumber": "23-1141", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1141.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1141%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/smith-wesson-brands-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1187", "slug": "fda-v-r-j-reynolds-vapor-co", "label": "FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.", "docketNumber": "23-1187", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1187.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1187%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fda-v-r-j-reynolds-vapor-co" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1201", "slug": "cc-devas-ltd-v-antrix-corp-ltd", "label": "CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.", "docketNumber": "23-1201", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1201.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1201%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/cc-devas-ltd-v-antrix-corp-ltd" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1226", "slug": "mclaughlin-chiropractic-assoc-v-mckesson-corp", "label": "McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp.", "docketNumber": "23-1226", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1226.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1226%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mclaughlin-chiropractic-assoc-v-mckesson-corp" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1229", "slug": "epa-v-calumet-shreveport-refining-l-l-c", "label": "EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C.", "docketNumber": "23-1229", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1229.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1229%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/epa-v-calumet-shreveport-refining-l-l-c" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1239", "slug": "barnes-v-felix", "label": "Barnes v. Felix", "docketNumber": "23-1239", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Barnes v. Felix", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1239.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1239%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/barnes-v-felix" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1259", "slug": "blom-bank-sal-v-honickman", "label": "BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman", "docketNumber": "23-1259", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1259.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1259%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/blom-bank-sal-v-honickman" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1270", "slug": "riley-v-bondi-att-y-gen", "label": "Riley v. Bondi, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "23-1270", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Riley v. Bondi, Att'y Gen.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1270.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1270%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/riley-v-bondi-att-y-gen" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1275", "slug": "medina-v-planned-parenthood-south-atlantic", "label": "Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic", "docketNumber": "23-1275", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1275.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1275%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/medina-v-planned-parenthood-south-atlantic" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1300", "slug": "nrc-v-texas", "label": "NRC v. Texas", "docketNumber": "23-1300", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "NRC v. Texas", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1300.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1300%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nrc-v-texas" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1324", "slug": "perttu-v-richards", "label": "Perttu v. Richards", "docketNumber": "23-1324", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Perttu v. Richards", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1324.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1324%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/perttu-v-richards" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1345", "slug": "rivers-v-guerrero", "label": "Rivers v. Guerrero", "docketNumber": "23-1345", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Rivers v. Guerrero", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1345.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1345%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/rivers-v-guerrero" }, { "id": "scotus-23-191", "slug": "williams-v-washington", "label": "Williams v. Washington", "docketNumber": "23-191", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Williams v. Washington", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-191.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-191%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/williams-v-washington" }, { "id": "scotus-23-217", "slug": "e-m-d-sales-inc-v-carrera", "label": "E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera", "docketNumber": "23-217", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-217.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-217%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/e-m-d-sales-inc-v-carrera" }, { "id": "scotus-23-365", "slug": "medical-marijuana-inc-v-horn", "label": "Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn", "docketNumber": "23-365", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-365.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-365%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/medical-marijuana-inc-v-horn" }, { "id": "scotus-23-477", "slug": "united-states-v-skrmetti", "label": "United States v. Skrmetti", "docketNumber": "23-477", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "United States v. Skrmetti", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-477.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-477%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-skrmetti" }, { "id": "scotus-23-583", "slug": "bouarfa-v-mayorkas-sec-of-homeland-security", "label": "Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, Sec. of Homeland Security", "docketNumber": "23-583", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, Sec. of Homeland Security", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-583.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-583%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bouarfa-v-mayorkas-sec-of-homeland-security" }, { "id": "scotus-23-621", "slug": "lackey-v-stinnie", "label": "Lackey v. Stinnie", "docketNumber": "23-621", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Lackey v. Stinnie", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-621.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-621%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/lackey-v-stinnie" }, { "id": "scotus-23-677", "slug": "royal-canin-u-s-a-inc-v-wullschleger", "label": "Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger", "docketNumber": "23-677", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-677.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-677%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/royal-canin-u-s-a-inc-v-wullschleger" }, { "id": "scotus-23-713", "slug": "bufkin-v-mcdonough-sec-of-va", "label": "Bufkin v. McDonough, Sec. of VA", "docketNumber": "23-713", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Bufkin v. McDonough, Sec. of VA", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-713.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-713%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bufkin-v-mcdonough-sec-of-va" }, { "id": "scotus-23-715", "slug": "advocate-christ-medical-v-becerra-sec-of-h-hs", "label": "Advocate Christ Medical v. Becerra, Sec. of H&HS", "docketNumber": "23-715", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Advocate Christ Medical v. Becerra, Sec. of H&HS", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-715.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-715%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/advocate-christ-medical-v-becerra-sec-of-h-hs" }, { "id": "scotus-23-7483", "slug": "esteras-v-united-states", "label": "Esteras v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-7483", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Esteras v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-7483.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-7483%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/esteras-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-23-753", "slug": "san-francisco-v-epa", "label": "San Francisco v. EPA", "docketNumber": "23-753", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "San Francisco v. EPA", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-753.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-753%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/san-francisco-v-epa" }, { "id": "scotus-23-7809", "slug": "gutierrez-v-saenz", "label": "Gutierrez v. Saenz", "docketNumber": "23-7809", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Gutierrez v. Saenz", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-7809.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-7809%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/gutierrez-v-saenz" }, { "id": "scotus-23-824", "slug": "united-states-v-miller", "label": "United States v. Miller", "docketNumber": "23-824", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "United States v. Miller", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-824.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-824%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-miller" }, { "id": "scotus-23-825", "slug": "delligatti-v-united-states", "label": "Delligatti v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-825", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Delligatti v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-825.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-825%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/delligatti-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-23-852", "slug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-vanderstok", "label": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. VanDerStok", "docketNumber": "23-852", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. VanDerStok", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-852.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-852%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/garland-att-y-gen-v-vanderstok" }, { "id": "scotus-23-861", "slug": "feliciano-v-dept-of-transportation", "label": "Feliciano v. Dept. of Transportation", "docketNumber": "23-861", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Feliciano v. Dept. of Transportation", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-861.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-861%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/feliciano-v-dept-of-transportation" }, { "id": "scotus-23-867", "slug": "hungary-v-simon", "label": "Hungary v. Simon", "docketNumber": "23-867", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Hungary v. Simon", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-867.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-867%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hungary-v-simon" }, { "id": "scotus-23-900", "slug": "dewberry-group-inc-v-dewberry-engineers-inc", "label": "Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc.", "docketNumber": "23-900", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-900.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-900%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/dewberry-group-inc-v-dewberry-engineers-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-23-909", "slug": "kousisis-v-united-states", "label": "Kousisis v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-909", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Kousisis v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-909.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-909%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/kousisis-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-23-929", "slug": "velazquez-v-garland-att-y-gen", "label": "Velazquez v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "23-929", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Velazquez v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-929.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-929%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/velazquez-v-garland-att-y-gen" }, { "id": "scotus-23-970", "slug": "nvidia-corp-v-e-ohman-j-or-fonder-ab", "label": "NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB", "docketNumber": "23-970", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-970.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-970%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nvidia-corp-v-e-ohman-j-or-fonder-ab" }, { "id": "scotus-23-971", "slug": "waetzig-v-halliburton-energy-services", "label": "Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services", "docketNumber": "23-971", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-971.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-971%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/waetzig-v-halliburton-energy-services" }, { "id": "scotus-23-975", "slug": "seven-county-coalition-v-eagle-county", "label": "Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County", "docketNumber": "23-975", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-975.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-975%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/seven-county-coalition-v-eagle-county" }, { "id": "scotus-23-980", "slug": "facebook-inc-v-amalgamated-bank", "label": "Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank", "docketNumber": "23-980", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-980.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-980%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/facebook-inc-v-amalgamated-bank" }, { "id": "scotus-23-997", "slug": "stanley-v-city-of-sanford", "label": "Stanley v. City of Sanford", "docketNumber": "23-997", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Stanley v. City of Sanford", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-997.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-997%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/stanley-v-city-of-sanford" }, { "id": "scotus-24-109", "slug": "louisiana-v-callais", "label": "Louisiana v. Callais", "docketNumber": "24-109", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Louisiana v. Callais", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-109.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-109%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/louisiana-v-callais" }, { "id": "scotus-24-154", "slug": "catholic-charities-bureau-v-wi-labor-review-comm-n", "label": "Catholic Charities Bureau v. WI Labor Review Comm'n", "docketNumber": "24-154", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Catholic Charities Bureau v. WI Labor Review Comm'n", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-154.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-154%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/catholic-charities-bureau-v-wi-labor-review-comm-n" }, { "id": "scotus-24-20", "slug": "fuld-v-plo", "label": "Fuld v. PLO", "docketNumber": "24-20", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Fuld v. PLO", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-20.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-20%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fuld-v-plo" }, { "id": "scotus-24-249", "slug": "a-j-t-v-osseo-area-schools", "label": "A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools", "docketNumber": "24-249", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-249.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-249%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/a-j-t-v-osseo-area-schools" }, { "id": "scotus-24-275", "slug": "parrish-v-united-states", "label": "Parrish v. United States", "docketNumber": "24-275", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Parrish v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-275.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-275%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/parrish-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-24-297", "slug": "mahmoud-v-taylor", "label": "Mahmoud v. Taylor", "docketNumber": "24-297", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Mahmoud v. Taylor", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-297.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-297%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mahmoud-v-taylor" }, { "id": "scotus-24-304", "slug": "laboratory-corp-of-america-v-davis", "label": "Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis", "docketNumber": "24-304", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-304.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-304%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/laboratory-corp-of-america-v-davis" }, { "id": "scotus-24-316", "slug": "kennedy-sec-of-h-hs-v-braidwood-mgmt-inc", "label": "Kennedy, Sec. of H&HS v. Braidwood Mgmt., Inc.", "docketNumber": "24-316", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Kennedy, Sec. of H&HS v. Braidwood Mgmt., Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-316.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-316%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/kennedy-sec-of-h-hs-v-braidwood-mgmt-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-24-320", "slug": "soto-v-united-states", "label": "Soto v. United States", "docketNumber": "24-320", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Soto v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-320.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-320%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/soto-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-24-354", "slug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "label": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [ "administrative-law", "telecommunications", "nondelegation" ], "whyTracked": "Recent nondelegation / universal-service fund fight at the Court.", "caseName": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "status": "decided", "docketId": 69797216, "dateArgued": "2025-03-26", "dateFiled": "2025-06-27", "citations": [ "606 U.S. 656" ], "syllabus": "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. v. CONSUMERS' RESEARCH et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the \ue405fth circuit No. 24\u2013354. Argued March 26, 2025\u2014Decided June 27, 2025* The Communications Act of 1934 established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) and instructed it to make available to \u201call the people of the United States\u201d reliable communications services \u201cat reasonable charges.\u201d 47 U. S. C. \u00a7 151. That objective is today known as \u201cuniversal service.\u201d The universal-service project arose from the concern that pure market mechanisms would leave some population segments\u2014such as the poor and those in rural areas\u2014without access to needed communications services. Under the 1934 Act, the FCC pur- sued universal service primarily through implicit subsidies, using its rate-regulation authority to lower costs for some consumers at the ex- pense of others. In 1996, Congress amended the Act and created a new framework for achieving universal service. Section 254 of the amended statute re- quires every carrier providing interstate telecommunications services to \u201ccontribute\u201d to a fund, known as the Universal Service Fund. See \u00a7 254(d). The FCC must use the money in the Fund to pay for universal-service subsidy programs. See \u00a7\u00a7 254(a), (d), (e). The stat- ute designates the benefciaries of universal-service subsidies\u2014low- income consumers, those in rural areas, schools and libraries, and rural hospitals. \u00a7\u00a7 254(b)(3), (h)(1), (j). And it provides detailed guidance regarding the communications services to which those benefciaries should have access. In deciding what services to subsidize, the FCC \u201cshall consider the extent to which\u201d a service is \u201cessential to education, public health, or public safety\u201d and has \u201cbeen subscribed to by a sub- stantial majority of residential customers.\u201d \u00a7\u00a7 254(c)(1)(A)\u2013(B). So too, the Commission must evaluate whether a service can be made avail- able at an \u201caffordable rate[ ].\u201d \u00a7 254(b)(1). Section 254 also sets forth \u201cprinciples\u201d on which the FCC \u201cshall base\u201d its universal-service policies. \u00a7 254(b). Among other things, those principles direct that all consum- ers, \u201cincluding low-income consumers\u201d and those in \u201crural\u201d areas, should *Together with No. 24\u2013422, Schools, Health, & Libraries Broadband Coalition et al. v. Consumers' Research et al., also on certiorari to the same court. Page Proof Pending Publication Page Proof Pending Publication Cite as: 606 U. S. 656 (2025) 657 Syllabus have\u2026", "hasFullText": true, "hasPdf": true, "pdfUrl": "/gavel/pdfs/fcc-v-consumers-research.pdf", "lineup": [ { "opinionId": 11243407, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan" } ], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-354.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-354%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "primaryClusterId": 10776820, "opinions": [ { "clusterId": 10776820, "caseName": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "dateFiled": "2025-06-27", "dateArgued": "2025-03-26", "citations": [ "606 U.S. 656" ], "citeCount": 17, "judge": "Elana Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10776820/fcc-v-consumers-research/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/606us2r64_8nj9.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 11243407, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/606us2r64_8nj9.pdf", "snippet": " PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 606 U. S. Part 2\n Pages 656\u2013747\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 27, 2025\n\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n\n\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are ", "excerpt": "PRELIMINARY PRINT\n\n Volume 606 U. S. Part 2\n Pages 656\u2013747\n\n OFFICIAL REPORTS\n OF\n\n THE SUPREME COURT\n June 27, 2025\n\nPage Proof Pending Publication\n\n REBECCA A. WOMELDORF\n reporter of decisions\n\n NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before\n the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter\n of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,\n pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.\n\f656 OCTOBER TERM, 2024\n\n Syllabus\n\nFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al.\n v. CONSUMERS' RESEARCH et al.\ncertiorari to the united states court of appeals for\n the \ue405fth circuit\n No. 24\u2013354. Argued March 26, 2025\u2014Decided June 27, 2025*\nThe Communications Act of 1934 established the Federal Communications\n Commission (FCC or Commission) and instructed it to make available\n to \u201call the people of the United States\u201d reliable communications services\n \u201cat reasonable charges.\u201d 47 U. S. C. \u00a7 151 . That objective is today\n known as \u201cuniversal service.\u201d The universal-service project arose from\n the concern that pure market mechanisms would leave some population\n segments\u2014such as the poor and those in rural areas\u2014wit\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] }, { "clusterId": 10618553, "caseName": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "dateFiled": "2025-06-27", "dateArgued": "2025-03-26", "citations": [], "citeCount": 0, "judge": "Elana Kagan", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10618553/fcc-v-consumers-research/", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf", "opinions": [ { "id": 11085141, "type": "combined-opinion", "typeLabel": "Opinion of the Court", "authorId": 1691, "authorName": "Elena Kagan", "downloadUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf", "snippet": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit ", "excerpt": "(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1\n\n Syllabus\n\n NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337 .\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n Syllabus\n\nFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. v.\n CONSUMERS\u2019 RESEARCH ET AL.\n\nCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR\n THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n No. 24\u2013354. Argued March 26, 2025\u2014Decided June 27, 2025*\nThe Communications Act of 1934 established the Federal Communica-\n tions Commission (FCC or Commission) and instructed it to make\n available to \u201call the people of the United States,\u201d reliable communica-\n tions services \u201cat reasonable charges.\u201d 47 U. S. C. \u00a7151 . That objective\n is today known as \u201cuniversal service.\u201d The universal-service project\n arose from the concern that pure market mechanisms would leave\n some population segments\u2014such as the poor and those in rural ar-\n eas\u2014without access to needed communications serv\u2026", "hasFullText": true } ] } ], "arguments": [ { "audioId": 98034, "caseName": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "dateArgued": "2025-03-26", "durationSeconds": 7900, "downloadUrl": "http://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-354.mp3", "courtListenerUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/98034/federal-communications-commission-et-al-petitioners-v-consumers/" } ], "href": "/gavel/docket/fcc-v-consumers-research", "holdingAuthor": "Elena Kagan" }, { "id": "scotus-24-362", "slug": "martin-v-united-states", "label": "Martin v. United States", "docketNumber": "24-362", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Martin v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-362.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-362%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/martin-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-24-394", "slug": "ok-charter-school-board-v-drummond", "label": "OK Charter School Board v. Drummond", "docketNumber": "24-394", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "OK Charter School Board v. Drummond", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-394.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-394%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/ok-charter-school-board-v-drummond" }, { "id": "scotus-24-416", "slug": "cir-v-zuch", "label": "CIR v. Zuch", "docketNumber": "24-416", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "CIR v. Zuch", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-416.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-416%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/cir-v-zuch" }, { "id": "scotus-24-656", "slug": "tiktok-inc-v-garland-att-y-gen", "label": "TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "24-656", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-656.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-656%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/tiktok-inc-v-garland-att-y-gen" }, { "id": "scotus-24-7", "slug": "diamond-alternative-energy-llc-v-epa", "label": "Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA", "docketNumber": "24-7", "term": "OT 2024", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2024.", "caseName": "Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-7.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-7%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/diamond-alternative-energy-llc-v-epa" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1197", "slug": "landor-v-la-doc", "label": "Landor v. LA DOC", "docketNumber": "23-1197", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Landor v. LA DOC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1197.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1197%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/landor-v-la-doc" }, { "id": "scotus-23-1209", "slug": "m-k-employee-solutions-v-trustees-of-the-iam-pension-fund", "label": "M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund", "docketNumber": "23-1209", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1209.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2223-1209%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/m-k-employee-solutions-v-trustees-of-the-iam-pension-fund" }, { "id": "scotus-24-1021", "slug": "galette-v-nj-transit-corp", "label": "Galette v. NJ Transit Corp.", "docketNumber": "24-1021", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Galette v. NJ Transit Corp.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1021.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-1021%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/galette-v-nj-transit-corp" }, { "id": "scotus-24-1046", "slug": "wolford-v-lopez", "label": "Wolford v. Lopez", "docketNumber": "24-1046", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Wolford v. Lopez", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1046.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-1046%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/wolford-v-lopez" }, { "id": "scotus-24-1056", "slug": "rico-v-united-states", "label": "Rico v. United States", "docketNumber": "24-1056", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Rico v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1056.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-1056%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/rico-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-24-1063", "slug": "hunter-v-united-states", "label": "Hunter v. United States", "docketNumber": "24-1063", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Hunter v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1063.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-1063%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hunter-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-24-1068", "slug": "monsanto-co-v-durnell", "label": "Monsanto Co. v. Durnell", "docketNumber": "24-1068", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Monsanto Co. v. Durnell", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1068.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-1068%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/monsanto-co-v-durnell" }, { "id": "scotus-24-1234", "slug": "united-states-v-hemani", "label": "United States v. Hemani", "docketNumber": "24-1234", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "United States v. Hemani", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1234.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-1234%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/united-states-v-hemani" }, { "id": "scotus-24-1238", "slug": "montgomery-v-caribe-transport-ii-llc", "label": "Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC", "docketNumber": "24-1238", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1238.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-1238%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/montgomery-v-caribe-transport-ii-llc" }, { "id": "scotus-24-1260", "slug": "watson-v-rnc", "label": "Watson v. RNC", "docketNumber": "24-1260", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Watson v. RNC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1260.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-1260%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/watson-v-rnc" }, { "id": "scotus-24-1287", "slug": "learning-resources-inc-v-trump-president-of-u-s", "label": "Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, President of U.S.", "docketNumber": "24-1287", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, President of U.S.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1287.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-1287%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/learning-resources-inc-v-trump-president-of-u-s" }, { "id": "scotus-24-171", "slug": "cox-communications-v-sony-music-entertainment", "label": "Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment", "docketNumber": "24-171", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-171.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-171%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/cox-communications-v-sony-music-entertainment" }, { "id": "scotus-24-345", "slug": "fs-credit-opportunities-corp-v-saba-capital-master-fund", "label": "FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund", "docketNumber": "24-345", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-345.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-345%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fs-credit-opportunities-corp-v-saba-capital-master-fund" }, { "id": "scotus-24-351", "slug": "usps-v-konan", "label": "USPS v. Konan", "docketNumber": "24-351", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "USPS v. Konan", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-351.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-351%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/usps-v-konan" }, { "id": "scotus-24-38", "slug": "little-v-hecox", "label": "Little v. Hecox", "docketNumber": "24-38", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Little v. Hecox", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-38.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-38%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/little-v-hecox" }, { "id": "scotus-24-43", "slug": "west-virginia-v-b-p-j", "label": "West Virginia v. B. P. J.", "docketNumber": "24-43", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "West Virginia v. B. P. J.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-43.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-43%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/west-virginia-v-b-p-j" }, { "id": "scotus-24-440", "slug": "berk-v-choy", "label": "Berk v. Choy", "docketNumber": "24-440", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Berk v. Choy", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-440.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-440%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/berk-v-choy" }, { "id": "scotus-24-482", "slug": "ellingburg-v-united-states", "label": "Ellingburg v. United States", "docketNumber": "24-482", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Ellingburg v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-482.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-482%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/ellingburg-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-24-539", "slug": "chiles-v-salazar", "label": "Chiles v. Salazar", "docketNumber": "24-539", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Chiles v. Salazar", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-539.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-539%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/chiles-v-salazar" }, { "id": "scotus-24-5438", "slug": "bowe-v-united-states", "label": "Bowe v. United States", "docketNumber": "24-5438", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Bowe v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-5438.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-5438%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bowe-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-24-556", "slug": "fernandez-v-united-states", "label": "Fernandez v. United States", "docketNumber": "24-556", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Fernandez v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-556.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-556%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fernandez-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-24-557", "slug": "villarreal-v-texas", "label": "Villarreal v. Texas", "docketNumber": "24-557", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Villarreal v. Texas", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-557.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-557%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/villarreal-v-texas" }, { "id": "scotus-24-568", "slug": "bost-v-il-bd-of-elections", "label": "Bost v. IL Bd. of Elections", "docketNumber": "24-568", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Bost v. IL Bd. of Elections", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-568.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-568%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/bost-v-il-bd-of-elections" }, { "id": "scotus-24-5774", "slug": "barrett-v-united-states", "label": "Barrett v. United States", "docketNumber": "24-5774", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Barrett v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-5774.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-5774%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/barrett-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-24-621", "slug": "nrsc-v-fec", "label": "NRSC v. FEC", "docketNumber": "24-621", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "NRSC v. FEC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-621.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-621%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/nrsc-v-fec" }, { "id": "scotus-24-624", "slug": "case-v-montana", "label": "Case v. Montana", "docketNumber": "24-624", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Case v. Montana", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-624.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-624%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/case-v-montana" }, { "id": "scotus-24-699", "slug": "exxon-mobil-corp-v-corporaci-n-cimex-s-a", "label": "Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporaci\u00f3n Cimex, S.A.", "docketNumber": "24-699", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporaci\u00f3n Cimex, S.A.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-699.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-699%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/exxon-mobil-corp-v-corporaci-n-cimex-s-a" }, { "id": "scotus-24-724", "slug": "hain-celestial-group-v-palmquist", "label": "Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist", "docketNumber": "24-724", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-724.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-724%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hain-celestial-group-v-palmquist" }, { "id": "scotus-24-7351", "slug": "pitchford-v-cain", "label": "Pitchford v. Cain", "docketNumber": "24-7351", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Pitchford v. Cain", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-7351.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-7351%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/pitchford-v-cain" }, { "id": "scotus-24-758", "slug": "geo-group-inc-v-menocal", "label": "GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal", "docketNumber": "24-758", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-758.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-758%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/geo-group-inc-v-menocal" }, { "id": "scotus-24-777", "slug": "urias-orellana-v-bondi-att-y-gen", "label": "Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "24-777", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, Att'y Gen.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-777.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-777%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/urias-orellana-v-bondi-att-y-gen" }, { "id": "scotus-24-781", "slug": "first-choice-women-s-resource-centers-v-platkin", "label": "First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin", "docketNumber": "24-781", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-781.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-781%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/first-choice-women-s-resource-centers-v-platkin" }, { "id": "scotus-24-783", "slug": "enbridge-energy-lp-v-nessel", "label": "Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel", "docketNumber": "24-783", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-783.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-783%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/enbridge-energy-lp-v-nessel" }, { "id": "scotus-24-808", "slug": "coney-island-auto-parts-inc-v-burton", "label": "Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton", "docketNumber": "24-808", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-808.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-808%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/coney-island-auto-parts-inc-v-burton" }, { "id": "scotus-24-813", "slug": "chevron-usa-inc-v-plaquemines-parish", "label": "Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish", "docketNumber": "24-813", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-813.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-813%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/chevron-usa-inc-v-plaquemines-parish" }, { "id": "scotus-24-820", "slug": "rutherford-v-united-states", "label": "Rutherford v. United States", "docketNumber": "24-820", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Rutherford v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-820.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-820%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/rutherford-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-24-856", "slug": "cisco-systems-v-doe-i", "label": "Cisco Systems v. Doe I", "docketNumber": "24-856", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Cisco Systems v. Doe I", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-856.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-856%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/cisco-systems-v-doe-i" }, { "id": "scotus-24-872", "slug": "hamm-v-smith", "label": "Hamm v. Smith", "docketNumber": "24-872", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Hamm v. Smith", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-872.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-872%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hamm-v-smith" }, { "id": "scotus-24-889", "slug": "hikma-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-v-amarin-pharma-inc", "label": "Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.", "docketNumber": "24-889", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-889.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-889%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hikma-pharmaceuticals-usa-inc-v-amarin-pharma-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-24-924", "slug": "hencely-v-fluor-corp", "label": "Hencely v. Fluor Corp.", "docketNumber": "24-924", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Hencely v. Fluor Corp.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-924.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-924%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/hencely-v-fluor-corp" }, { "id": "scotus-24-935", "slug": "flowers-foods-inc-v-brock", "label": "Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock", "docketNumber": "24-935", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-935.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-935%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/flowers-foods-inc-v-brock" }, { "id": "scotus-24-983", "slug": "havana-docks-corp-v-royal-caribbean-cruises", "label": "Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises", "docketNumber": "24-983", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-983.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-983%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/havana-docks-corp-v-royal-caribbean-cruises" }, { "id": "scotus-24-993", "slug": "olivier-v-city-of-brandon", "label": "Olivier v. City of Brandon", "docketNumber": "24-993", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Olivier v. City of Brandon", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-993.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2224-993%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/olivier-v-city-of-brandon" }, { "id": "scotus-25-1083", "slug": "mullin-sec-of-homeland-security-v-doe", "label": "Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe", "docketNumber": "25-1083", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1083.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-1083%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/mullin-sec-of-homeland-security-v-doe" }, { "id": "scotus-25-112", "slug": "chatrie-v-united-states", "label": "Chatrie v. United States", "docketNumber": "25-112", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Chatrie v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-112.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-112%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/chatrie-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-25-197", "slug": "t-m-v-univ-of-md-medical-sys-corp", "label": "T. M. v. Univ. of MD Medical Sys. Corp.", "docketNumber": "25-197", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "T. M. v. Univ. of MD Medical Sys. Corp.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-197.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-197%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/t-m-v-univ-of-md-medical-sys-corp" }, { "id": "scotus-25-332", "slug": "trump-president-of-united-states-v-slaughter", "label": "Trump, President of United States v. Slaughter", "docketNumber": "25-332", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Trump, President of United States v. Slaughter", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-332.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-332%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/trump-president-of-united-states-v-slaughter" }, { "id": "scotus-25-365", "slug": "trump-president-of-u-s-v-barbara", "label": "Trump, President of U.S. v. Barbara", "docketNumber": "25-365", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Trump, President of U.S. v. Barbara", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-365%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/trump-president-of-u-s-v-barbara" }, { "id": "scotus-25-406", "slug": "fcc-v-at-t", "label": "FCC v. AT&T", "docketNumber": "25-406", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "FCC v. AT&T", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-406.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-406%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/fcc-v-at-t" }, { "id": "scotus-25-429", "slug": "blanche-acting-atty-gen-v-lau", "label": "Blanche, Acting Atty Gen. v. Lau", "docketNumber": "25-429", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Blanche, Acting Atty Gen. v. Lau", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-429.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-429%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/blanche-acting-atty-gen-v-lau" }, { "id": "scotus-25-466", "slug": "sripetch-v-sec", "label": "Sripetch v. SEC", "docketNumber": "25-466", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Sripetch v. SEC", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-466.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-466%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/sripetch-v-sec" }, { "id": "scotus-25-5", "slug": "noem-sec-of-homeland-v-al-otro-lado", "label": "Noem, Sec. of Homeland v. Al Otro Lado", "docketNumber": "25-5", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Noem, Sec. of Homeland v. Al Otro Lado", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-5%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/noem-sec-of-homeland-v-al-otro-lado" }, { "id": "scotus-25-5146", "slug": "abouammo-v-united-states", "label": "Abouammo v. United States", "docketNumber": "25-5146", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Abouammo v. United States", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5146.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-5146%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/abouammo-v-united-states" }, { "id": "scotus-25-6", "slug": "keathley-v-buddy-ayers-construction-inc", "label": "Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.", "docketNumber": "25-6", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-6.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-6%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/keathley-v-buddy-ayers-construction-inc" }, { "id": "scotus-25-83", "slug": "jules-v-andre-balazs-properties", "label": "Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties", "docketNumber": "25-83", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-83.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-83%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/jules-v-andre-balazs-properties" }, { "id": "scotus-25-95", "slug": "pung-v-isabella-county", "label": "Pung v. Isabella County", "docketNumber": "25-95", "term": "OT 2025", "topicTags": [], "whyTracked": "SCOTUS merits case argued in OT 2025.", "caseName": "Pung v. Isabella County", "status": "unknown", "citations": [], "hasFullText": false, "hasPdf": false, "lineup": [], "scotusDocketUrl": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-95.html", "courtListenerSearchUrl": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?type=o&q=docketNumber%3A%2225-95%22%20AND%20court_id%3Ascotus", "opinions": [], "arguments": [], "href": "/gavel/docket/pung-v-isabella-county" } ], "justices": [ { "id": "john-glover-roberts-jr", "personId": 2738, "slug": "john-glover-roberts-jr", "name": "John G. Roberts Jr.", "nameFirst": "John", "nameLast": "Roberts", "birthday": "1955-01-27", "birthdayPrecision": "day", "ageYears": 71, "appointed": "2005-09-29", "yearsOnCourt": 20, "office": "chief", "authored": 31, "joined": 0, "panelAppearances": 89, "credits": [ { "caseSlug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "caseLabel": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2025-03-26" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "role": "author", "opinionType": "010combined", "dateFiled": "2024-07-01" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2024-07-01" }, { "caseSlug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "caseLabel": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "role": "author", "opinionType": "010combined", "dateFiled": "2024-06-28" }, { "caseSlug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "caseLabel": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2024-06-28" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "caseLabel": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "role": "author", "opinionType": "010combined", "dateFiled": "2024-06-21" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "caseLabel": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2024-06-21" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-anderson", "caseLabel": "Trump v. Anderson", "docketNumber": "23-719", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-02-08" }, { "caseSlug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "caseLabel": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-01-17" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "caseLabel": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-11-07" }, { "caseSlug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "caseLabel": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-10-03" }, { "caseSlug": "biden-v-nebraska", "caseLabel": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "role": "author", "opinionType": "010combined", "dateFiled": "2023-06-30" }, { "caseSlug": "biden-v-nebraska", "caseLabel": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2023-06-30" }, { "caseSlug": "sffa-v-harvard", "caseLabel": "Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard", "docketNumber": "20-1199", "role": "author", "opinionType": "010combined", "dateFiled": "2023-06-29" }, { "caseSlug": "sffa-v-harvard", "caseLabel": "Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard", "docketNumber": "20-1199", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2023-06-29" }, { "caseSlug": "moore-v-harper", "caseLabel": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "role": "author", "opinionType": "010combined", "dateFiled": "2023-06-27" }, { "caseSlug": "moore-v-harper", "caseLabel": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2023-06-27" }, { "caseSlug": "biden-v-nebraska", "caseLabel": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "moore-v-harper", "caseLabel": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "caseLabel": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-05" }, { "caseSlug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "caseLabel": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-07-13" }, { "caseSlug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "caseLabel": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-30" }, { "caseSlug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "caseLabel": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "role": "author", "opinionType": "010combined", "dateFiled": "2022-06-30" }, { "caseSlug": "carson-v-makin", "caseLabel": "Carson v. Makin", "docketNumber": "20-1088", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-21" }, { "caseSlug": "federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate", "caseLabel": "Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate", "docketNumber": "21-12", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-05-16" }, { "caseSlug": "cummings-v-premier-rehab", "caseLabel": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab", "docketNumber": "20-219", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-04-28" }, { "caseSlug": "oklahoma-v-castro-huerta", "caseLabel": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "docketNumber": "21-429", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "caseLabel": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "docketNumber": "21-418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "nance-v-ward", "caseLabel": "Nance v. Ward", "docketNumber": "21-439", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "george-v-mcdonough", "caseLabel": "George v. McDonough", "docketNumber": "21-234", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-washington", "caseLabel": "United States v. Washington", "docketNumber": "21-404", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-18" }, { "caseSlug": "viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana", "caseLabel": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "docketNumber": "20-1573", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "torres-v-texas-dept-of-public-safety", "caseLabel": "Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety", "docketNumber": "20-603", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co", "caseLabel": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "docketNumber": "20-807", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon", "caseLabel": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "docketNumber": "21-309", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd", "caseLabel": "ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "docketNumber": "21-401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "golan-v-saada", "caseLabel": "Golan v. Saada", "docketNumber": "20-1034", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp", "caseLabel": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP", "docketNumber": "21-248", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "morgan-v-sundance-inc", "caseLabel": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-328", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "egbert-v-boule", "caseLabel": "Egbert v. Boule", "docketNumber": "21-147", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "ruan-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Ruan v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1410", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc", "caseLabel": "Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc.", "docketNumber": "20-1641", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "caseLabel": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "arizona-v-san-francisco", "caseLabel": "Arizona v. San Francisco", "docketNumber": "20-1775", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas", "caseLabel": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "docketNumber": "20-493", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "denezpi-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Denezpi v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-7622", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "concepcion-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Concepcion v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1650", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate", "caseLabel": "Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate", "docketNumber": "21-12", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection", "caseLabel": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection", "docketNumber": "20-1566", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "shurtleff-v-boston", "caseLabel": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "docketNumber": "20-1800", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue", "caseLabel": "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", "docketNumber": "20-1472", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-12" }, { "caseSlug": "johnson-v-arteaga-martinez", "caseLabel": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "docketNumber": "19-896", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "caseLabel": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "docketNumber": "20-322", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "gallardo-v-marstiller", "caseLabel": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "docketNumber": "20-1263", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-10" }, { "caseSlug": "shinn-v-ramirez", "caseLabel": "Shinn v. Ramirez", "docketNumber": "20-1009", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "carson-v-makin", "caseLabel": "Carson v. Makin", "docketNumber": "20-1088", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-taylor", "caseLabel": "United States v. Taylor", "docketNumber": "20-1459", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-northwestern-university", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "docketNumber": "19-1401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "patel-v-garland-att-y-gen", "caseLabel": "Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "20-979", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "dobbs-v-jackson", "caseLabel": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "docketNumber": "19-1392", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-01" }, { "caseSlug": "american-hospital-assn-v-becerra", "caseLabel": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "docketNumber": "20-1114", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "cummings-v-premier-rehab", "caseLabel": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab", "docketNumber": "20-219", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "becerra-v-empire-health-foundation", "caseLabel": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation", "docketNumber": "20-1312", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-29" }, { "caseSlug": "austin-v-reagan-national-advertising", "caseLabel": "Austin v. Reagan National Advertising", "docketNumber": "20-1029", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-10" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-vaello-madero", "caseLabel": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "docketNumber": "20-303", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-09" }, { "caseSlug": "fbi-v-fazaga", "caseLabel": "FBI v. Fazaga", "docketNumber": "20-828", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-l-p", "caseLabel": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.", "docketNumber": "20-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "nysrpa-v-bruen", "caseLabel": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen", "docketNumber": "20-843", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-03" }, { "caseSlug": "badgerow-v-walters", "caseLabel": "Badgerow v. Walters", "docketNumber": "20-1143", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson", "caseLabel": "Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson", "docketNumber": "20-804", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-tsarnaev", "caseLabel": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "docketNumber": "20-443", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "babcock-v-kijakazi", "caseLabel": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "docketNumber": "20-480", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "caseLabel": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "docketNumber": "20-601", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "thompson-v-clark", "caseLabel": "Thompson v. Clark", "docketNumber": "20-659", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-zubaydah", "caseLabel": "United States v. Zubaydah", "docketNumber": "20-827", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-06" }, { "caseSlug": "hemphill-v-new-york", "caseLabel": "Hemphill v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-637", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "brown-v-davenport", "caseLabel": "Brown v. Davenport", "docketNumber": "20-826", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "wooden-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Wooden v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5279", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-04" }, { "caseSlug": "mcdonnell-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "McDonnell v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-474", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "dietz-v-bouldin", "caseLabel": "Dietz v. Bouldin", "docketNumber": "15-458", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-26" }, { "caseSlug": "mathis-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Mathis v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-6092", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-26" }, { "caseSlug": "supap-kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc", "caseLabel": "Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.", "docketNumber": "15-375", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc-v-lee", "caseLabel": "Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee", "docketNumber": "15-446", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "birchfield-v-north-dakota", "caseLabel": "Birchfield v. North Dakota", "docketNumber": "14-1468", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-20" }, { "caseSlug": "encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro", "caseLabel": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "docketNumber": "15-415", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-20" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-bryant", "caseLabel": "United States v. Bryant", "docketNumber": "15-420", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "army-corps-of-engineers-v-hawkes-co", "caseLabel": "Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.", "docketNumber": "15-290", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "sheriff-v-gillie", "caseLabel": "Sheriff v. Gillie", "docketNumber": "15-338", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ross-v-blake", "caseLabel": "Ross v. Blake", "docketNumber": "15-339", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "crst-van-expedited-inc-v-eeoc", "caseLabel": "CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC", "docketNumber": "14-1375", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "betterman-v-montana", "caseLabel": "Betterman v. Montana", "docketNumber": "14-1457", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zubik-v-burwell", "caseLabel": "Zubik v. Burwell", "docketNumber": "14-1418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "simmons-v-himmelreich", "caseLabel": "Simmons v. Himmelreich", "docketNumber": "15-109", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "puerto-rico-v-franklin-cal-tax-free-trust", "caseLabel": "Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust", "docketNumber": "15-233", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "wittman-v-personhuballah", "caseLabel": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "docketNumber": "14-1504", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "rjr-nabisco-inc-v-european-community", "caseLabel": "RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community", "docketNumber": "15-138", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "whole-woman-s-health-v-hellerstedt", "caseLabel": "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt", "docketNumber": "15-274", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "husky-int-l-electronics-inc-v-ritz", "caseLabel": "Husky Int'l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz", "docketNumber": "15-145", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "nichols-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Nichols v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-5238", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "voisine-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Voisine v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-10154", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29" }, { "caseSlug": "williams-v-pennsylvania", "caseLabel": "Williams v. Pennsylvania", "docketNumber": "15-5040", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-talen-energy-marketing-llc", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC", "docketNumber": "14-614", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-24" }, { "caseSlug": "halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-electronics-inc", "caseLabel": "Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.", "docketNumber": "14-1513", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "taylor-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Taylor v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-6166", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "utah-v-strieff", "caseLabel": "Utah v. Strieff", "docketNumber": "14-1373", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "kingdomware-technologies-inc-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-916", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-22" } ], "portraitUrl": "/gavel/portraits/2738.jpeg" }, { "id": "clarence-thomas", "personId": 3200, "slug": "clarence-thomas", "name": "Clarence Thomas", "nameFirst": "Clarence", "nameLast": "Thomas", "birthday": "1948-06-23", "birthdayPrecision": "day", "ageYears": 78, "appointed": "1991-10-23", "yearsOnCourt": 34, "office": "associate", "authored": 18, "joined": 0, "panelAppearances": 89, "credits": [ { "caseSlug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "caseLabel": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2025-03-26" }, { "caseSlug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "caseLabel": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "role": "author", "opinionType": "010combined", "dateFiled": "2024-05-16" }, { "caseSlug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "caseLabel": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2024-05-16" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-anderson", "caseLabel": "Trump v. Anderson", "docketNumber": "23-719", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-02-08" }, { "caseSlug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "caseLabel": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-01-17" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "caseLabel": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-11-07" }, { "caseSlug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "caseLabel": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-10-03" }, { "caseSlug": "biden-v-nebraska", "caseLabel": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "moore-v-harper", "caseLabel": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "caseLabel": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-05" }, { "caseSlug": "nysrpa-v-bruen", "caseLabel": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen", "docketNumber": "20-843", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-07-29" }, { "caseSlug": "gallardo-v-marstiller", "caseLabel": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "docketNumber": "20-1263", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-17" }, { "caseSlug": "egbert-v-boule", "caseLabel": "Egbert v. Boule", "docketNumber": "21-147", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-08" }, { "caseSlug": "gallardo-v-marstiller", "caseLabel": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "docketNumber": "20-1263", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-06" }, { "caseSlug": "southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon", "caseLabel": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "docketNumber": "21-309", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-06" }, { "caseSlug": "shinn-v-ramirez", "caseLabel": "Shinn v. Ramirez", "docketNumber": "20-1009", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-05-23" }, { "caseSlug": "oklahoma-v-castro-huerta", "caseLabel": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "docketNumber": "21-429", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "caseLabel": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "docketNumber": "21-418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "nance-v-ward", "caseLabel": "Nance v. Ward", "docketNumber": "21-439", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "george-v-mcdonough", "caseLabel": "George v. McDonough", "docketNumber": "21-234", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-washington", "caseLabel": "United States v. Washington", "docketNumber": "21-404", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-18" }, { "caseSlug": "viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana", "caseLabel": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "docketNumber": "20-1573", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "torres-v-texas-dept-of-public-safety", "caseLabel": "Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety", "docketNumber": "20-603", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co", "caseLabel": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "docketNumber": "20-807", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon", "caseLabel": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "docketNumber": "21-309", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd", "caseLabel": "ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "docketNumber": "21-401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "golan-v-saada", "caseLabel": "Golan v. Saada", "docketNumber": "20-1034", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp", "caseLabel": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP", "docketNumber": "21-248", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "morgan-v-sundance-inc", "caseLabel": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-328", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-tsarnaev", "caseLabel": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "docketNumber": "20-443", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-03-04" }, { "caseSlug": "egbert-v-boule", "caseLabel": "Egbert v. Boule", "docketNumber": "21-147", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "ruan-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Ruan v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1410", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc", "caseLabel": "Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc.", "docketNumber": "20-1641", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "caseLabel": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "arizona-v-san-francisco", "caseLabel": "Arizona v. San Francisco", "docketNumber": "20-1775", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas", "caseLabel": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "docketNumber": "20-493", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "denezpi-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Denezpi v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-7622", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "concepcion-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Concepcion v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1650", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate", "caseLabel": "Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate", "docketNumber": "21-12", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection", "caseLabel": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection", "docketNumber": "20-1566", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "shurtleff-v-boston", "caseLabel": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "docketNumber": "20-1800", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue", "caseLabel": "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", "docketNumber": "20-1472", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-12" }, { "caseSlug": "johnson-v-arteaga-martinez", "caseLabel": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "docketNumber": "19-896", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "caseLabel": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "docketNumber": "20-322", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "gallardo-v-marstiller", "caseLabel": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "docketNumber": "20-1263", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-10" }, { "caseSlug": "shinn-v-ramirez", "caseLabel": "Shinn v. Ramirez", "docketNumber": "20-1009", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "carson-v-makin", "caseLabel": "Carson v. Makin", "docketNumber": "20-1088", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-taylor", "caseLabel": "United States v. Taylor", "docketNumber": "20-1459", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-northwestern-university", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "docketNumber": "19-1401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "patel-v-garland-att-y-gen", "caseLabel": "Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "20-979", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "dobbs-v-jackson", "caseLabel": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "docketNumber": "19-1392", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-01" }, { "caseSlug": "american-hospital-assn-v-becerra", "caseLabel": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "docketNumber": "20-1114", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "cummings-v-premier-rehab", "caseLabel": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab", "docketNumber": "20-219", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "becerra-v-empire-health-foundation", "caseLabel": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation", "docketNumber": "20-1312", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-29" }, { "caseSlug": "austin-v-reagan-national-advertising", "caseLabel": "Austin v. Reagan National Advertising", "docketNumber": "20-1029", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-10" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-vaello-madero", "caseLabel": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "docketNumber": "20-303", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-09" }, { "caseSlug": "fbi-v-fazaga", "caseLabel": "FBI v. Fazaga", "docketNumber": "20-828", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-l-p", "caseLabel": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.", "docketNumber": "20-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "nysrpa-v-bruen", "caseLabel": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen", "docketNumber": "20-843", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-03" }, { "caseSlug": "badgerow-v-walters", "caseLabel": "Badgerow v. Walters", "docketNumber": "20-1143", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson", "caseLabel": "Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson", "docketNumber": "20-804", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-tsarnaev", "caseLabel": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "docketNumber": "20-443", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "babcock-v-kijakazi", "caseLabel": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "docketNumber": "20-480", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "caseLabel": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "docketNumber": "20-601", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "thompson-v-clark", "caseLabel": "Thompson v. Clark", "docketNumber": "20-659", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-zubaydah", "caseLabel": "United States v. Zubaydah", "docketNumber": "20-827", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-06" }, { "caseSlug": "hemphill-v-new-york", "caseLabel": "Hemphill v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-637", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "brown-v-davenport", "caseLabel": "Brown v. Davenport", "docketNumber": "20-826", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "wooden-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Wooden v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5279", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-04" }, { "caseSlug": "mcdonnell-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "McDonnell v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-474", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "dietz-v-bouldin", "caseLabel": "Dietz v. Bouldin", "docketNumber": "15-458", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-26" }, { "caseSlug": "mathis-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Mathis v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-6092", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-26" }, { "caseSlug": "supap-kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc", "caseLabel": "Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.", "docketNumber": "15-375", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc-v-lee", "caseLabel": "Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee", "docketNumber": "15-446", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "birchfield-v-north-dakota", "caseLabel": "Birchfield v. North Dakota", "docketNumber": "14-1468", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-20" }, { "caseSlug": "encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro", "caseLabel": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "docketNumber": "15-415", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-20" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-bryant", "caseLabel": "United States v. Bryant", "docketNumber": "15-420", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "army-corps-of-engineers-v-hawkes-co", "caseLabel": "Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.", "docketNumber": "15-290", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "sheriff-v-gillie", "caseLabel": "Sheriff v. Gillie", "docketNumber": "15-338", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ross-v-blake", "caseLabel": "Ross v. Blake", "docketNumber": "15-339", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "crst-van-expedited-inc-v-eeoc", "caseLabel": "CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC", "docketNumber": "14-1375", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "betterman-v-montana", "caseLabel": "Betterman v. Montana", "docketNumber": "14-1457", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zubik-v-burwell", "caseLabel": "Zubik v. Burwell", "docketNumber": "14-1418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "simmons-v-himmelreich", "caseLabel": "Simmons v. Himmelreich", "docketNumber": "15-109", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "puerto-rico-v-franklin-cal-tax-free-trust", "caseLabel": "Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust", "docketNumber": "15-233", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "wittman-v-personhuballah", "caseLabel": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "docketNumber": "14-1504", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "rjr-nabisco-inc-v-european-community", "caseLabel": "RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community", "docketNumber": "15-138", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "whole-woman-s-health-v-hellerstedt", "caseLabel": "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt", "docketNumber": "15-274", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "husky-int-l-electronics-inc-v-ritz", "caseLabel": "Husky Int'l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz", "docketNumber": "15-145", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "nichols-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Nichols v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-5238", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "voisine-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Voisine v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-10154", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29" }, { "caseSlug": "williams-v-pennsylvania", "caseLabel": "Williams v. Pennsylvania", "docketNumber": "15-5040", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-talen-energy-marketing-llc", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC", "docketNumber": "14-614", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-24" }, { "caseSlug": "halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-electronics-inc", "caseLabel": "Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.", "docketNumber": "14-1513", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "taylor-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Taylor v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-6166", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "utah-v-strieff", "caseLabel": "Utah v. Strieff", "docketNumber": "14-1373", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "kingdomware-technologies-inc-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-916", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-22" } ], "portraitUrl": "/gavel/portraits/3200.jpeg" }, { "id": "samuel-a-alito-jr", "personId": 77, "slug": "samuel-a-alito-jr", "name": "Samuel A. Alito Jr.", "nameFirst": "Samuel", "nameLast": "Alito", "birthday": "1950-01-01", "birthdayPrecision": "year", "ageYears": 76, "appointed": "2006-01-31", "yearsOnCourt": 20, "office": "associate", "authored": 13, "joined": 0, "panelAppearances": 89, "credits": [ { "caseSlug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "caseLabel": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2025-03-26" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-anderson", "caseLabel": "Trump v. Anderson", "docketNumber": "23-719", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-02-08" }, { "caseSlug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "caseLabel": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-01-17" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "caseLabel": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-11-07" }, { "caseSlug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "caseLabel": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-10-03" }, { "caseSlug": "biden-v-nebraska", "caseLabel": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "moore-v-harper", "caseLabel": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "caseLabel": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-05" }, { "caseSlug": "dobbs-v-jackson", "caseLabel": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "docketNumber": "19-1392", "role": "author", "opinionType": "010combined", "dateFiled": "2022-06-24" }, { "caseSlug": "dobbs-v-jackson", "caseLabel": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "docketNumber": "19-1392", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-24" }, { "caseSlug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "caseLabel": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "docketNumber": "20-322", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-17" }, { "caseSlug": "viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana", "caseLabel": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "docketNumber": "20-1573", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15" }, { "caseSlug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "caseLabel": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "docketNumber": "20-322", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13" }, { "caseSlug": "oklahoma-v-castro-huerta", "caseLabel": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "docketNumber": "21-429", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "caseLabel": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "docketNumber": "21-418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "nance-v-ward", "caseLabel": "Nance v. Ward", "docketNumber": "21-439", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "george-v-mcdonough", "caseLabel": "George v. McDonough", "docketNumber": "21-234", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-washington", "caseLabel": "United States v. Washington", "docketNumber": "21-404", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-18" }, { "caseSlug": "viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana", "caseLabel": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "docketNumber": "20-1573", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "torres-v-texas-dept-of-public-safety", "caseLabel": "Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety", "docketNumber": "20-603", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co", "caseLabel": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "docketNumber": "20-807", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon", "caseLabel": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "docketNumber": "21-309", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd", "caseLabel": "ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "docketNumber": "21-401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "golan-v-saada", "caseLabel": "Golan v. Saada", "docketNumber": "20-1034", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp", "caseLabel": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP", "docketNumber": "21-248", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "morgan-v-sundance-inc", "caseLabel": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-328", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "caseLabel": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "docketNumber": "20-601", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-03-04" }, { "caseSlug": "fbi-v-fazaga", "caseLabel": "FBI v. Fazaga", "docketNumber": "20-828", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-03-04" }, { "caseSlug": "cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "caseLabel": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "docketNumber": "20-601", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-03-03" }, { "caseSlug": "egbert-v-boule", "caseLabel": "Egbert v. Boule", "docketNumber": "21-147", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "ruan-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Ruan v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1410", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc", "caseLabel": "Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc.", "docketNumber": "20-1641", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "caseLabel": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "arizona-v-san-francisco", "caseLabel": "Arizona v. San Francisco", "docketNumber": "20-1775", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas", "caseLabel": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "docketNumber": "20-493", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "denezpi-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Denezpi v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-7622", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "concepcion-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Concepcion v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1650", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate", "caseLabel": "Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate", "docketNumber": "21-12", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection", "caseLabel": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection", "docketNumber": "20-1566", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "shurtleff-v-boston", "caseLabel": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "docketNumber": "20-1800", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue", "caseLabel": "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", "docketNumber": "20-1472", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-12" }, { "caseSlug": "johnson-v-arteaga-martinez", "caseLabel": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "docketNumber": "19-896", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "caseLabel": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "docketNumber": "20-322", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "gallardo-v-marstiller", "caseLabel": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "docketNumber": "20-1263", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-10" }, { "caseSlug": "shinn-v-ramirez", "caseLabel": "Shinn v. Ramirez", "docketNumber": "20-1009", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "carson-v-makin", "caseLabel": "Carson v. Makin", "docketNumber": "20-1088", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-taylor", "caseLabel": "United States v. Taylor", "docketNumber": "20-1459", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-northwestern-university", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "docketNumber": "19-1401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "patel-v-garland-att-y-gen", "caseLabel": "Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "20-979", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "dobbs-v-jackson", "caseLabel": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "docketNumber": "19-1392", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-01" }, { "caseSlug": "american-hospital-assn-v-becerra", "caseLabel": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "docketNumber": "20-1114", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "cummings-v-premier-rehab", "caseLabel": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab", "docketNumber": "20-219", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "becerra-v-empire-health-foundation", "caseLabel": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation", "docketNumber": "20-1312", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-29" }, { "caseSlug": "austin-v-reagan-national-advertising", "caseLabel": "Austin v. Reagan National Advertising", "docketNumber": "20-1029", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-10" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-vaello-madero", "caseLabel": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "docketNumber": "20-303", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-09" }, { "caseSlug": "fbi-v-fazaga", "caseLabel": "FBI v. Fazaga", "docketNumber": "20-828", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-l-p", "caseLabel": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.", "docketNumber": "20-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "nysrpa-v-bruen", "caseLabel": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen", "docketNumber": "20-843", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-03" }, { "caseSlug": "badgerow-v-walters", "caseLabel": "Badgerow v. Walters", "docketNumber": "20-1143", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson", "caseLabel": "Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson", "docketNumber": "20-804", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-tsarnaev", "caseLabel": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "docketNumber": "20-443", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "babcock-v-kijakazi", "caseLabel": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "docketNumber": "20-480", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "caseLabel": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "docketNumber": "20-601", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "thompson-v-clark", "caseLabel": "Thompson v. Clark", "docketNumber": "20-659", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-zubaydah", "caseLabel": "United States v. Zubaydah", "docketNumber": "20-827", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-06" }, { "caseSlug": "hemphill-v-new-york", "caseLabel": "Hemphill v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-637", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "brown-v-davenport", "caseLabel": "Brown v. Davenport", "docketNumber": "20-826", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "wooden-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Wooden v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5279", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-04" }, { "caseSlug": "mcdonnell-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "McDonnell v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-474", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "dietz-v-bouldin", "caseLabel": "Dietz v. Bouldin", "docketNumber": "15-458", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-26" }, { "caseSlug": "mathis-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Mathis v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-6092", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-26" }, { "caseSlug": "supap-kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc", "caseLabel": "Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.", "docketNumber": "15-375", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc-v-lee", "caseLabel": "Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee", "docketNumber": "15-446", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "birchfield-v-north-dakota", "caseLabel": "Birchfield v. North Dakota", "docketNumber": "14-1468", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-20" }, { "caseSlug": "encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro", "caseLabel": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "docketNumber": "15-415", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-20" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-bryant", "caseLabel": "United States v. Bryant", "docketNumber": "15-420", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "army-corps-of-engineers-v-hawkes-co", "caseLabel": "Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.", "docketNumber": "15-290", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "sheriff-v-gillie", "caseLabel": "Sheriff v. Gillie", "docketNumber": "15-338", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ross-v-blake", "caseLabel": "Ross v. Blake", "docketNumber": "15-339", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "crst-van-expedited-inc-v-eeoc", "caseLabel": "CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC", "docketNumber": "14-1375", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "betterman-v-montana", "caseLabel": "Betterman v. Montana", "docketNumber": "14-1457", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zubik-v-burwell", "caseLabel": "Zubik v. Burwell", "docketNumber": "14-1418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "simmons-v-himmelreich", "caseLabel": "Simmons v. Himmelreich", "docketNumber": "15-109", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "puerto-rico-v-franklin-cal-tax-free-trust", "caseLabel": "Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust", "docketNumber": "15-233", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "wittman-v-personhuballah", "caseLabel": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "docketNumber": "14-1504", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "rjr-nabisco-inc-v-european-community", "caseLabel": "RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community", "docketNumber": "15-138", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "whole-woman-s-health-v-hellerstedt", "caseLabel": "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt", "docketNumber": "15-274", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "husky-int-l-electronics-inc-v-ritz", "caseLabel": "Husky Int'l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz", "docketNumber": "15-145", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "nichols-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Nichols v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-5238", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "voisine-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Voisine v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-10154", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29" }, { "caseSlug": "williams-v-pennsylvania", "caseLabel": "Williams v. Pennsylvania", "docketNumber": "15-5040", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-talen-energy-marketing-llc", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC", "docketNumber": "14-614", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-24" }, { "caseSlug": "halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-electronics-inc", "caseLabel": "Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.", "docketNumber": "14-1513", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "taylor-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Taylor v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-6166", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "utah-v-strieff", "caseLabel": "Utah v. Strieff", "docketNumber": "14-1373", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "kingdomware-technologies-inc-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-916", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-22" } ], "portraitUrl": "/gavel/portraits/77.jpeg" }, { "id": "sonia-sotomayor", "personId": 3045, "slug": "sonia-sotomayor", "name": "Sonia Sotomayor", "nameFirst": "Sonia", "nameLast": "Sotomayor", "birthday": "1954-01-01", "birthdayPrecision": "year", "ageYears": 72, "appointed": "2009-08-08", "yearsOnCourt": 16, "office": "associate", "authored": 18, "joined": 0, "panelAppearances": 89, "credits": [ { "caseSlug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "caseLabel": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2025-03-26" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-anderson", "caseLabel": "Trump v. Anderson", "docketNumber": "23-719", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-02-08" }, { "caseSlug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "caseLabel": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-01-17" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "caseLabel": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-11-07" }, { "caseSlug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "caseLabel": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-10-03" }, { "caseSlug": "biden-v-nebraska", "caseLabel": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "moore-v-harper", "caseLabel": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "caseLabel": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-05" }, { "caseSlug": "concepcion-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Concepcion v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1650", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-28" }, { "caseSlug": "concepcion-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Concepcion v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1650", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-27" }, { "caseSlug": "golan-v-saada", "caseLabel": "Golan v. Saada", "docketNumber": "20-1034", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15" }, { "caseSlug": "johnson-v-arteaga-martinez", "caseLabel": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "docketNumber": "19-896", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13" }, { "caseSlug": "siegel-v-fitzgerald", "caseLabel": "Siegel v. Fitzgerald", "docketNumber": "21-441", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-06" }, { "caseSlug": "oklahoma-v-castro-huerta", "caseLabel": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "docketNumber": "21-429", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "caseLabel": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "docketNumber": "21-418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "nance-v-ward", "caseLabel": "Nance v. Ward", "docketNumber": "21-439", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "austin-v-reagan-national-advertising", "caseLabel": "Austin v. Reagan National Advertising", "docketNumber": "20-1029", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21" }, { "caseSlug": "george-v-mcdonough", "caseLabel": "George v. McDonough", "docketNumber": "21-234", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-washington", "caseLabel": "United States v. Washington", "docketNumber": "21-404", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-18" }, { "caseSlug": "viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana", "caseLabel": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "docketNumber": "20-1573", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "torres-v-texas-dept-of-public-safety", "caseLabel": "Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety", "docketNumber": "20-603", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co", "caseLabel": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "docketNumber": "20-807", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon", "caseLabel": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "docketNumber": "21-309", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd", "caseLabel": "ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "docketNumber": "21-401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "golan-v-saada", "caseLabel": "Golan v. Saada", "docketNumber": "20-1034", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp", "caseLabel": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP", "docketNumber": "21-248", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "morgan-v-sundance-inc", "caseLabel": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-328", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "egbert-v-boule", "caseLabel": "Egbert v. Boule", "docketNumber": "21-147", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "ruan-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Ruan v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1410", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc", "caseLabel": "Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc.", "docketNumber": "20-1641", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "caseLabel": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "arizona-v-san-francisco", "caseLabel": "Arizona v. San Francisco", "docketNumber": "20-1775", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas", "caseLabel": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "docketNumber": "20-493", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "denezpi-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Denezpi v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-7622", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-northwestern-university", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "docketNumber": "19-1401", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-01-24" }, { "caseSlug": "hemphill-v-new-york", "caseLabel": "Hemphill v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-637", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-01-21" }, { "caseSlug": "hemphill-v-new-york", "caseLabel": "Hemphill v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-637", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-01-20" }, { "caseSlug": "concepcion-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Concepcion v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1650", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate", "caseLabel": "Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate", "docketNumber": "21-12", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection", "caseLabel": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection", "docketNumber": "20-1566", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "shurtleff-v-boston", "caseLabel": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "docketNumber": "20-1800", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue", "caseLabel": "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", "docketNumber": "20-1472", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-12" }, { "caseSlug": "johnson-v-arteaga-martinez", "caseLabel": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "docketNumber": "19-896", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "caseLabel": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "docketNumber": "20-322", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "gallardo-v-marstiller", "caseLabel": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "docketNumber": "20-1263", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-10" }, { "caseSlug": "shinn-v-ramirez", "caseLabel": "Shinn v. Ramirez", "docketNumber": "20-1009", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "carson-v-makin", "caseLabel": "Carson v. Makin", "docketNumber": "20-1088", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-taylor", "caseLabel": "United States v. Taylor", "docketNumber": "20-1459", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-northwestern-university", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "docketNumber": "19-1401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "patel-v-garland-att-y-gen", "caseLabel": "Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "20-979", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "dobbs-v-jackson", "caseLabel": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "docketNumber": "19-1392", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-01" }, { "caseSlug": "american-hospital-assn-v-becerra", "caseLabel": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "docketNumber": "20-1114", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "cummings-v-premier-rehab", "caseLabel": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab", "docketNumber": "20-219", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "becerra-v-empire-health-foundation", "caseLabel": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation", "docketNumber": "20-1312", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-29" }, { "caseSlug": "austin-v-reagan-national-advertising", "caseLabel": "Austin v. Reagan National Advertising", "docketNumber": "20-1029", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-10" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-vaello-madero", "caseLabel": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "docketNumber": "20-303", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-09" }, { "caseSlug": "fbi-v-fazaga", "caseLabel": "FBI v. Fazaga", "docketNumber": "20-828", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-l-p", "caseLabel": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.", "docketNumber": "20-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "nysrpa-v-bruen", "caseLabel": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen", "docketNumber": "20-843", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-03" }, { "caseSlug": "badgerow-v-walters", "caseLabel": "Badgerow v. Walters", "docketNumber": "20-1143", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson", "caseLabel": "Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson", "docketNumber": "20-804", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-tsarnaev", "caseLabel": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "docketNumber": "20-443", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "babcock-v-kijakazi", "caseLabel": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "docketNumber": "20-480", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "caseLabel": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "docketNumber": "20-601", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "thompson-v-clark", "caseLabel": "Thompson v. Clark", "docketNumber": "20-659", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-zubaydah", "caseLabel": "United States v. Zubaydah", "docketNumber": "20-827", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-06" }, { "caseSlug": "hemphill-v-new-york", "caseLabel": "Hemphill v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-637", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "brown-v-davenport", "caseLabel": "Brown v. Davenport", "docketNumber": "20-826", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "wooden-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Wooden v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5279", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-04" }, { "caseSlug": "mcdonnell-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "McDonnell v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-474", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "dietz-v-bouldin", "caseLabel": "Dietz v. Bouldin", "docketNumber": "15-458", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-26" }, { "caseSlug": "mathis-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Mathis v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-6092", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-26" }, { "caseSlug": "supap-kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc", "caseLabel": "Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.", "docketNumber": "15-375", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc-v-lee", "caseLabel": "Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee", "docketNumber": "15-446", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "birchfield-v-north-dakota", "caseLabel": "Birchfield v. North Dakota", "docketNumber": "14-1468", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-20" }, { "caseSlug": "encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro", "caseLabel": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "docketNumber": "15-415", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-20" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-bryant", "caseLabel": "United States v. Bryant", "docketNumber": "15-420", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "army-corps-of-engineers-v-hawkes-co", "caseLabel": "Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.", "docketNumber": "15-290", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "sheriff-v-gillie", "caseLabel": "Sheriff v. Gillie", "docketNumber": "15-338", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ross-v-blake", "caseLabel": "Ross v. Blake", "docketNumber": "15-339", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "crst-van-expedited-inc-v-eeoc", "caseLabel": "CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC", "docketNumber": "14-1375", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "betterman-v-montana", "caseLabel": "Betterman v. Montana", "docketNumber": "14-1457", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zubik-v-burwell", "caseLabel": "Zubik v. Burwell", "docketNumber": "14-1418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "simmons-v-himmelreich", "caseLabel": "Simmons v. Himmelreich", "docketNumber": "15-109", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "puerto-rico-v-franklin-cal-tax-free-trust", "caseLabel": "Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust", "docketNumber": "15-233", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "wittman-v-personhuballah", "caseLabel": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "docketNumber": "14-1504", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "rjr-nabisco-inc-v-european-community", "caseLabel": "RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community", "docketNumber": "15-138", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "whole-woman-s-health-v-hellerstedt", "caseLabel": "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt", "docketNumber": "15-274", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "husky-int-l-electronics-inc-v-ritz", "caseLabel": "Husky Int'l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz", "docketNumber": "15-145", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "nichols-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Nichols v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-5238", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "voisine-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Voisine v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-10154", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29" }, { "caseSlug": "williams-v-pennsylvania", "caseLabel": "Williams v. Pennsylvania", "docketNumber": "15-5040", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-talen-energy-marketing-llc", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC", "docketNumber": "14-614", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-24" }, { "caseSlug": "halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-electronics-inc", "caseLabel": "Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.", "docketNumber": "14-1513", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "taylor-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Taylor v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-6166", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "utah-v-strieff", "caseLabel": "Utah v. Strieff", "docketNumber": "14-1373", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "kingdomware-technologies-inc-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-916", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-22" } ], "portraitUrl": "/gavel/portraits/3045.jpeg" }, { "id": "elena-kagan", "personId": 1691, "slug": "elena-kagan", "name": "Elena Kagan", "nameFirst": "Elena", "nameLast": "Kagan", "birthday": "1960-04-28", "birthdayPrecision": "day", "ageYears": 66, "appointed": "2010-08-07", "yearsOnCourt": 16, "office": "associate", "authored": 17, "joined": 0, "panelAppearances": 89, "credits": [ { "caseSlug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "caseLabel": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "role": "author", "opinionType": "010combined", "dateFiled": "2025-06-27" }, { "caseSlug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "caseLabel": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2025-06-27" }, { "caseSlug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "caseLabel": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2025-03-26" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-anderson", "caseLabel": "Trump v. Anderson", "docketNumber": "23-719", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-02-08" }, { "caseSlug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "caseLabel": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-01-17" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "caseLabel": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-11-07" }, { "caseSlug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "caseLabel": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-10-03" }, { "caseSlug": "biden-v-nebraska", "caseLabel": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "moore-v-harper", "caseLabel": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "caseLabel": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-05" }, { "caseSlug": "becerra-v-empire-health-foundation", "caseLabel": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation", "docketNumber": "20-1312", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-24" }, { "caseSlug": "nance-v-ward", "caseLabel": "Nance v. Ward", "docketNumber": "21-439", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-23" }, { "caseSlug": "morgan-v-sundance-inc", "caseLabel": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-328", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-05-23" }, { "caseSlug": "oklahoma-v-castro-huerta", "caseLabel": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "docketNumber": "21-429", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "caseLabel": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "docketNumber": "21-418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "nance-v-ward", "caseLabel": "Nance v. Ward", "docketNumber": "21-439", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection", "caseLabel": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection", "docketNumber": "20-1566", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21" }, { "caseSlug": "george-v-mcdonough", "caseLabel": "George v. McDonough", "docketNumber": "21-234", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-washington", "caseLabel": "United States v. Washington", "docketNumber": "21-404", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-18" }, { "caseSlug": "badgerow-v-walters", "caseLabel": "Badgerow v. Walters", "docketNumber": "20-1143", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-03-31" }, { "caseSlug": "viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana", "caseLabel": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "docketNumber": "20-1573", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "torres-v-texas-dept-of-public-safety", "caseLabel": "Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety", "docketNumber": "20-603", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co", "caseLabel": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "docketNumber": "20-807", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon", "caseLabel": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "docketNumber": "21-309", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd", "caseLabel": "ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "docketNumber": "21-401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "golan-v-saada", "caseLabel": "Golan v. Saada", "docketNumber": "20-1034", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp", "caseLabel": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP", "docketNumber": "21-248", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "morgan-v-sundance-inc", "caseLabel": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-328", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "wooden-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Wooden v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5279", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-03-08" }, { "caseSlug": "wooden-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Wooden v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5279", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-03-07" }, { "caseSlug": "egbert-v-boule", "caseLabel": "Egbert v. Boule", "docketNumber": "21-147", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "ruan-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Ruan v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1410", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc", "caseLabel": "Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc.", "docketNumber": "20-1641", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "caseLabel": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "arizona-v-san-francisco", "caseLabel": "Arizona v. San Francisco", "docketNumber": "20-1775", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas", "caseLabel": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "docketNumber": "20-493", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "denezpi-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Denezpi v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-7622", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "concepcion-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Concepcion v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1650", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate", "caseLabel": "Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate", "docketNumber": "21-12", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection", "caseLabel": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection", "docketNumber": "20-1566", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "shurtleff-v-boston", "caseLabel": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "docketNumber": "20-1800", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue", "caseLabel": "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", "docketNumber": "20-1472", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-12" }, { "caseSlug": "johnson-v-arteaga-martinez", "caseLabel": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "docketNumber": "19-896", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "caseLabel": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "docketNumber": "20-322", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "gallardo-v-marstiller", "caseLabel": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "docketNumber": "20-1263", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-10" }, { "caseSlug": "shinn-v-ramirez", "caseLabel": "Shinn v. Ramirez", "docketNumber": "20-1009", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "carson-v-makin", "caseLabel": "Carson v. Makin", "docketNumber": "20-1088", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-taylor", "caseLabel": "United States v. Taylor", "docketNumber": "20-1459", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-northwestern-university", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "docketNumber": "19-1401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "patel-v-garland-att-y-gen", "caseLabel": "Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "20-979", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "dobbs-v-jackson", "caseLabel": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "docketNumber": "19-1392", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-01" }, { "caseSlug": "american-hospital-assn-v-becerra", "caseLabel": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "docketNumber": "20-1114", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "cummings-v-premier-rehab", "caseLabel": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab", "docketNumber": "20-219", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "becerra-v-empire-health-foundation", "caseLabel": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation", "docketNumber": "20-1312", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-29" }, { "caseSlug": "austin-v-reagan-national-advertising", "caseLabel": "Austin v. Reagan National Advertising", "docketNumber": "20-1029", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-10" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-vaello-madero", "caseLabel": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "docketNumber": "20-303", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-09" }, { "caseSlug": "fbi-v-fazaga", "caseLabel": "FBI v. Fazaga", "docketNumber": "20-828", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-l-p", "caseLabel": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.", "docketNumber": "20-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "nysrpa-v-bruen", "caseLabel": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen", "docketNumber": "20-843", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-03" }, { "caseSlug": "badgerow-v-walters", "caseLabel": "Badgerow v. Walters", "docketNumber": "20-1143", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson", "caseLabel": "Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson", "docketNumber": "20-804", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-tsarnaev", "caseLabel": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "docketNumber": "20-443", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "babcock-v-kijakazi", "caseLabel": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "docketNumber": "20-480", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "caseLabel": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "docketNumber": "20-601", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "thompson-v-clark", "caseLabel": "Thompson v. Clark", "docketNumber": "20-659", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-zubaydah", "caseLabel": "United States v. Zubaydah", "docketNumber": "20-827", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-06" }, { "caseSlug": "hemphill-v-new-york", "caseLabel": "Hemphill v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-637", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "brown-v-davenport", "caseLabel": "Brown v. Davenport", "docketNumber": "20-826", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "wooden-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Wooden v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5279", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-04" }, { "caseSlug": "mcdonnell-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "McDonnell v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-474", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "dietz-v-bouldin", "caseLabel": "Dietz v. Bouldin", "docketNumber": "15-458", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-26" }, { "caseSlug": "mathis-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Mathis v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-6092", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-26" }, { "caseSlug": "supap-kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc", "caseLabel": "Supap Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.", "docketNumber": "15-375", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "cuozzo-speed-technologies-llc-v-lee", "caseLabel": "Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee", "docketNumber": "15-446", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "birchfield-v-north-dakota", "caseLabel": "Birchfield v. North Dakota", "docketNumber": "14-1468", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-20" }, { "caseSlug": "encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro", "caseLabel": "Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro", "docketNumber": "15-415", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-20" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-bryant", "caseLabel": "United States v. Bryant", "docketNumber": "15-420", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "army-corps-of-engineers-v-hawkes-co", "caseLabel": "Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.", "docketNumber": "15-290", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "sheriff-v-gillie", "caseLabel": "Sheriff v. Gillie", "docketNumber": "15-338", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ross-v-blake", "caseLabel": "Ross v. Blake", "docketNumber": "15-339", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "crst-van-expedited-inc-v-eeoc", "caseLabel": "CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC", "docketNumber": "14-1375", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "betterman-v-montana", "caseLabel": "Betterman v. Montana", "docketNumber": "14-1457", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zubik-v-burwell", "caseLabel": "Zubik v. Burwell", "docketNumber": "14-1418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "simmons-v-himmelreich", "caseLabel": "Simmons v. Himmelreich", "docketNumber": "15-109", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "puerto-rico-v-franklin-cal-tax-free-trust", "caseLabel": "Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust", "docketNumber": "15-233", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "wittman-v-personhuballah", "caseLabel": "Wittman v. Personhuballah", "docketNumber": "14-1504", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "rjr-nabisco-inc-v-european-community", "caseLabel": "RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community", "docketNumber": "15-138", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "whole-woman-s-health-v-hellerstedt", "caseLabel": "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt", "docketNumber": "15-274", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "husky-int-l-electronics-inc-v-ritz", "caseLabel": "Husky Int'l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz", "docketNumber": "15-145", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "nichols-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Nichols v. United States", "docketNumber": "15-5238", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "voisine-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Voisine v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-10154", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29" }, { "caseSlug": "williams-v-pennsylvania", "caseLabel": "Williams v. Pennsylvania", "docketNumber": "15-5040", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-29" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-talen-energy-marketing-llc", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC", "docketNumber": "14-614", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-24" }, { "caseSlug": "halo-electronics-inc-v-pulse-electronics-inc", "caseLabel": "Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.", "docketNumber": "14-1513", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "taylor-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Taylor v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-6166", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "utah-v-strieff", "caseLabel": "Utah v. Strieff", "docketNumber": "14-1373", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "kingdomware-technologies-inc-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States", "docketNumber": "14-916", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2016-02-22" } ], "portraitUrl": "/gavel/portraits/1691.jpeg" }, { "id": "neil-mcgill-gorsuch", "personId": 1250, "slug": "neil-mcgill-gorsuch", "name": "Neil M. Gorsuch", "nameFirst": "Neil", "nameLast": "Gorsuch", "birthday": "1967-08-29", "birthdayPrecision": "day", "ageYears": 58, "appointed": "2017-04-10", "yearsOnCourt": 9, "office": "associate", "authored": 16, "joined": 0, "panelAppearances": 61, "credits": [ { "caseSlug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "caseLabel": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2025-03-26" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-anderson", "caseLabel": "Trump v. Anderson", "docketNumber": "23-719", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-02-08" }, { "caseSlug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "caseLabel": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-01-17" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "caseLabel": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-11-07" }, { "caseSlug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "caseLabel": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-10-03" }, { "caseSlug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "caseLabel": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "role": "author", "opinionType": "010combined", "dateFiled": "2023-06-30" }, { "caseSlug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "caseLabel": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2023-06-30" }, { "caseSlug": "biden-v-nebraska", "caseLabel": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "moore-v-harper", "caseLabel": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "caseLabel": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-05" }, { "caseSlug": "kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "caseLabel": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "docketNumber": "21-418", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-07-13" }, { "caseSlug": "kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "caseLabel": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "docketNumber": "21-418", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-27" }, { "caseSlug": "berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp", "caseLabel": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP", "docketNumber": "21-248", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-23" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-taylor", "caseLabel": "United States v. Taylor", "docketNumber": "20-1459", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-21" }, { "caseSlug": "ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas", "caseLabel": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "docketNumber": "20-493", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15" }, { "caseSlug": "oklahoma-v-castro-huerta", "caseLabel": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "docketNumber": "21-429", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "caseLabel": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "docketNumber": "21-418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "nance-v-ward", "caseLabel": "Nance v. Ward", "docketNumber": "21-439", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "brown-v-davenport", "caseLabel": "Brown v. Davenport", "docketNumber": "20-826", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21" }, { "caseSlug": "george-v-mcdonough", "caseLabel": "George v. McDonough", "docketNumber": "21-234", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-washington", "caseLabel": "United States v. Washington", "docketNumber": "21-404", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-18" }, { "caseSlug": "viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana", "caseLabel": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "docketNumber": "20-1573", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "torres-v-texas-dept-of-public-safety", "caseLabel": "Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety", "docketNumber": "20-603", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co", "caseLabel": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "docketNumber": "20-807", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon", "caseLabel": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "docketNumber": "21-309", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson", "caseLabel": "Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson", "docketNumber": "20-804", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-03-24" }, { "caseSlug": "zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd", "caseLabel": "ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "docketNumber": "21-401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "golan-v-saada", "caseLabel": "Golan v. Saada", "docketNumber": "20-1034", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp", "caseLabel": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP", "docketNumber": "21-248", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "morgan-v-sundance-inc", "caseLabel": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-328", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "egbert-v-boule", "caseLabel": "Egbert v. Boule", "docketNumber": "21-147", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "ruan-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Ruan v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1410", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc", "caseLabel": "Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc.", "docketNumber": "20-1641", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "caseLabel": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "arizona-v-san-francisco", "caseLabel": "Arizona v. San Francisco", "docketNumber": "20-1775", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas", "caseLabel": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "docketNumber": "20-493", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "denezpi-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Denezpi v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-7622", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "concepcion-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Concepcion v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1650", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate", "caseLabel": "Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate", "docketNumber": "21-12", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection", "caseLabel": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection", "docketNumber": "20-1566", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "shurtleff-v-boston", "caseLabel": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "docketNumber": "20-1800", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue", "caseLabel": "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", "docketNumber": "20-1472", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-12" }, { "caseSlug": "johnson-v-arteaga-martinez", "caseLabel": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "docketNumber": "19-896", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "caseLabel": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "docketNumber": "20-322", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "gallardo-v-marstiller", "caseLabel": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "docketNumber": "20-1263", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-10" }, { "caseSlug": "shinn-v-ramirez", "caseLabel": "Shinn v. Ramirez", "docketNumber": "20-1009", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "carson-v-makin", "caseLabel": "Carson v. Makin", "docketNumber": "20-1088", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-taylor", "caseLabel": "United States v. Taylor", "docketNumber": "20-1459", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-northwestern-university", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "docketNumber": "19-1401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "patel-v-garland-att-y-gen", "caseLabel": "Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "20-979", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "dobbs-v-jackson", "caseLabel": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "docketNumber": "19-1392", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-01" }, { "caseSlug": "american-hospital-assn-v-becerra", "caseLabel": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "docketNumber": "20-1114", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "cummings-v-premier-rehab", "caseLabel": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab", "docketNumber": "20-219", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "becerra-v-empire-health-foundation", "caseLabel": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation", "docketNumber": "20-1312", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-29" }, { "caseSlug": "austin-v-reagan-national-advertising", "caseLabel": "Austin v. Reagan National Advertising", "docketNumber": "20-1029", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-10" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-vaello-madero", "caseLabel": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "docketNumber": "20-303", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-09" }, { "caseSlug": "fbi-v-fazaga", "caseLabel": "FBI v. Fazaga", "docketNumber": "20-828", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-l-p", "caseLabel": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.", "docketNumber": "20-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "nysrpa-v-bruen", "caseLabel": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen", "docketNumber": "20-843", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-03" }, { "caseSlug": "badgerow-v-walters", "caseLabel": "Badgerow v. Walters", "docketNumber": "20-1143", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson", "caseLabel": "Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson", "docketNumber": "20-804", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-tsarnaev", "caseLabel": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "docketNumber": "20-443", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "babcock-v-kijakazi", "caseLabel": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "docketNumber": "20-480", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "caseLabel": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "docketNumber": "20-601", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "thompson-v-clark", "caseLabel": "Thompson v. Clark", "docketNumber": "20-659", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-zubaydah", "caseLabel": "United States v. Zubaydah", "docketNumber": "20-827", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-06" }, { "caseSlug": "hemphill-v-new-york", "caseLabel": "Hemphill v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-637", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "brown-v-davenport", "caseLabel": "Brown v. Davenport", "docketNumber": "20-826", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "wooden-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Wooden v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5279", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-04" } ], "portraitUrl": "/gavel/portraits/1250.jpeg" }, { "id": "brett-m-kavanaugh", "personId": 1713, "slug": "brett-m-kavanaugh", "name": "Brett M. Kavanaugh", "nameFirst": "Brett", "nameLast": "Kavanaugh", "birthday": "1965-01-01", "birthdayPrecision": "year", "ageYears": 61, "appointed": "2018-10-06", "yearsOnCourt": 7, "office": "associate", "authored": 11, "joined": 0, "panelAppearances": 61, "credits": [ { "caseSlug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "caseLabel": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2025-03-26" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-anderson", "caseLabel": "Trump v. Anderson", "docketNumber": "23-719", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-02-08" }, { "caseSlug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "caseLabel": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-01-17" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "caseLabel": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-11-07" }, { "caseSlug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "caseLabel": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-10-03" }, { "caseSlug": "biden-v-nebraska", "caseLabel": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "moore-v-harper", "caseLabel": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "caseLabel": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-05" }, { "caseSlug": "oklahoma-v-castro-huerta", "caseLabel": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "docketNumber": "21-429", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-29" }, { "caseSlug": "marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc", "caseLabel": "Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc.", "docketNumber": "20-1641", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-21" }, { "caseSlug": "american-hospital-assn-v-becerra", "caseLabel": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "docketNumber": "20-1114", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-vaello-madero", "caseLabel": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "docketNumber": "20-303", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-04-28" }, { "caseSlug": "oklahoma-v-castro-huerta", "caseLabel": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "docketNumber": "21-429", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "caseLabel": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "docketNumber": "21-418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "nance-v-ward", "caseLabel": "Nance v. Ward", "docketNumber": "21-439", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-vaello-madero", "caseLabel": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "docketNumber": "20-303", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21" }, { "caseSlug": "george-v-mcdonough", "caseLabel": "George v. McDonough", "docketNumber": "21-234", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-washington", "caseLabel": "United States v. Washington", "docketNumber": "21-404", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-18" }, { "caseSlug": "thompson-v-clark", "caseLabel": "Thompson v. Clark", "docketNumber": "20-659", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-04-04" }, { "caseSlug": "viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana", "caseLabel": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "docketNumber": "20-1573", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "torres-v-texas-dept-of-public-safety", "caseLabel": "Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety", "docketNumber": "20-603", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co", "caseLabel": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "docketNumber": "20-807", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon", "caseLabel": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "docketNumber": "21-309", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd", "caseLabel": "ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "docketNumber": "21-401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "golan-v-saada", "caseLabel": "Golan v. Saada", "docketNumber": "20-1034", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp", "caseLabel": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP", "docketNumber": "21-248", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "morgan-v-sundance-inc", "caseLabel": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-328", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "egbert-v-boule", "caseLabel": "Egbert v. Boule", "docketNumber": "21-147", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "ruan-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Ruan v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1410", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc", "caseLabel": "Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc.", "docketNumber": "20-1641", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "caseLabel": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "arizona-v-san-francisco", "caseLabel": "Arizona v. San Francisco", "docketNumber": "20-1775", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas", "caseLabel": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "docketNumber": "20-493", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "denezpi-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Denezpi v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-7622", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "concepcion-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Concepcion v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1650", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate", "caseLabel": "Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate", "docketNumber": "21-12", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection", "caseLabel": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection", "docketNumber": "20-1566", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "shurtleff-v-boston", "caseLabel": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "docketNumber": "20-1800", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue", "caseLabel": "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", "docketNumber": "20-1472", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-12" }, { "caseSlug": "johnson-v-arteaga-martinez", "caseLabel": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "docketNumber": "19-896", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "caseLabel": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "docketNumber": "20-322", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "gallardo-v-marstiller", "caseLabel": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "docketNumber": "20-1263", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-10" }, { "caseSlug": "shinn-v-ramirez", "caseLabel": "Shinn v. Ramirez", "docketNumber": "20-1009", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "carson-v-makin", "caseLabel": "Carson v. Makin", "docketNumber": "20-1088", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-taylor", "caseLabel": "United States v. Taylor", "docketNumber": "20-1459", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-northwestern-university", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "docketNumber": "19-1401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "patel-v-garland-att-y-gen", "caseLabel": "Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "20-979", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "dobbs-v-jackson", "caseLabel": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "docketNumber": "19-1392", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-01" }, { "caseSlug": "american-hospital-assn-v-becerra", "caseLabel": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "docketNumber": "20-1114", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "cummings-v-premier-rehab", "caseLabel": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab", "docketNumber": "20-219", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "becerra-v-empire-health-foundation", "caseLabel": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation", "docketNumber": "20-1312", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-29" }, { "caseSlug": "austin-v-reagan-national-advertising", "caseLabel": "Austin v. Reagan National Advertising", "docketNumber": "20-1029", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-10" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-vaello-madero", "caseLabel": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "docketNumber": "20-303", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-09" }, { "caseSlug": "fbi-v-fazaga", "caseLabel": "FBI v. Fazaga", "docketNumber": "20-828", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-l-p", "caseLabel": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.", "docketNumber": "20-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "nysrpa-v-bruen", "caseLabel": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen", "docketNumber": "20-843", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-03" }, { "caseSlug": "badgerow-v-walters", "caseLabel": "Badgerow v. Walters", "docketNumber": "20-1143", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson", "caseLabel": "Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson", "docketNumber": "20-804", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-tsarnaev", "caseLabel": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "docketNumber": "20-443", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "babcock-v-kijakazi", "caseLabel": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "docketNumber": "20-480", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "caseLabel": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "docketNumber": "20-601", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "thompson-v-clark", "caseLabel": "Thompson v. Clark", "docketNumber": "20-659", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-zubaydah", "caseLabel": "United States v. Zubaydah", "docketNumber": "20-827", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-06" }, { "caseSlug": "hemphill-v-new-york", "caseLabel": "Hemphill v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-637", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "brown-v-davenport", "caseLabel": "Brown v. Davenport", "docketNumber": "20-826", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "wooden-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Wooden v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5279", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-04" } ], "portraitUrl": "/gavel/portraits/1713.jpeg" }, { "id": "amy-coney-barrett", "personId": 8543, "slug": "amy-coney-barrett", "name": "Amy Coney Barrett", "nameFirst": "Amy", "nameLast": "Barrett", "birthday": "1972-01-01", "birthdayPrecision": "year", "ageYears": 54, "appointed": "2020-10-27", "yearsOnCourt": 5, "office": "associate", "authored": 12, "joined": 0, "panelAppearances": 61, "credits": [ { "caseSlug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "caseLabel": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2025-03-26" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-anderson", "caseLabel": "Trump v. Anderson", "docketNumber": "23-719", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-02-08" }, { "caseSlug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "caseLabel": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-01-17" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "caseLabel": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-11-07" }, { "caseSlug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "caseLabel": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-10-03" }, { "caseSlug": "biden-v-nebraska", "caseLabel": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "moore-v-harper", "caseLabel": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "caseLabel": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-05" }, { "caseSlug": "george-v-mcdonough", "caseLabel": "George v. McDonough", "docketNumber": "21-234", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-15" }, { "caseSlug": "denezpi-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Denezpi v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-7622", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13" }, { "caseSlug": "zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd", "caseLabel": "ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "docketNumber": "21-401", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-06-13" }, { "caseSlug": "patel-v-garland-att-y-gen", "caseLabel": "Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "20-979", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-05-16" }, { "caseSlug": "oklahoma-v-castro-huerta", "caseLabel": "Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta", "docketNumber": "21-429", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-27" }, { "caseSlug": "kennedy-v-bremerton-sch-dist", "caseLabel": "Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.", "docketNumber": "21-418", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "nance-v-ward", "caseLabel": "Nance v. Ward", "docketNumber": "21-439", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue", "caseLabel": "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", "docketNumber": "20-1472", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-04-21" }, { "caseSlug": "george-v-mcdonough", "caseLabel": "George v. McDonough", "docketNumber": "21-234", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-19" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-washington", "caseLabel": "United States v. Washington", "docketNumber": "21-404", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-04-18" }, { "caseSlug": "viking-river-cruises-inc-v-moriana", "caseLabel": "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana", "docketNumber": "20-1573", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-30" }, { "caseSlug": "torres-v-texas-dept-of-public-safety", "caseLabel": "Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety", "docketNumber": "20-603", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-29" }, { "caseSlug": "ledure-v-union-pacific-railroad-co", "caseLabel": "LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.", "docketNumber": "20-807", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "southwest-airlines-co-v-saxon", "caseLabel": "Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon", "docketNumber": "21-309", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-28" }, { "caseSlug": "zf-automotive-us-inc-v-luxshare-ltd", "caseLabel": "ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.", "docketNumber": "21-401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-23" }, { "caseSlug": "golan-v-saada", "caseLabel": "Golan v. Saada", "docketNumber": "20-1034", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-22" }, { "caseSlug": "berger-v-north-carolina-state-conf-of-naacp", "caseLabel": "Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of NAACP", "docketNumber": "21-248", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "morgan-v-sundance-inc", "caseLabel": "Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.", "docketNumber": "21-328", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-21" }, { "caseSlug": "egbert-v-boule", "caseLabel": "Egbert v. Boule", "docketNumber": "21-147", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-02" }, { "caseSlug": "ruan-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Ruan v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1410", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "marietta-memorial-hosp-v-davita-inc", "caseLabel": "Marietta Memorial Hosp. v. Davita Inc.", "docketNumber": "20-1641", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-03-01" }, { "caseSlug": "west-virginia-v-epa", "caseLabel": "West Virginia v. EPA", "docketNumber": "20-1530", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "arizona-v-san-francisco", "caseLabel": "Arizona v. San Francisco", "docketNumber": "20-1775", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-23" }, { "caseSlug": "ysleta-del-sur-pueblo-v-texas", "caseLabel": "Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas", "docketNumber": "20-493", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "denezpi-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Denezpi v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-7622", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-02-22" }, { "caseSlug": "concepcion-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Concepcion v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-1650", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "federal-election-commission-v-ted-cruz-for-senate", "caseLabel": "Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate", "docketNumber": "21-12", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-19" }, { "caseSlug": "cassirer-v-thyssen-bornemisza-collection", "caseLabel": "Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection", "docketNumber": "20-1566", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "shurtleff-v-boston", "caseLabel": "Shurtleff v. Boston", "docketNumber": "20-1800", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-18" }, { "caseSlug": "babcock-v-kijakazi", "caseLabel": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "docketNumber": "20-480", "role": "author", "opinionType": "combined-opinion", "dateFiled": "2022-01-13" }, { "caseSlug": "boechler-p-c-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue", "caseLabel": "Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue", "docketNumber": "20-1472", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-12" }, { "caseSlug": "johnson-v-arteaga-martinez", "caseLabel": "Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez", "docketNumber": "19-896", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "garland-att-y-gen-v-gonzalez", "caseLabel": "Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Gonzalez", "docketNumber": "20-322", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-11" }, { "caseSlug": "gallardo-v-marstiller", "caseLabel": "Gallardo v. Marstiller", "docketNumber": "20-1263", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-01-10" }, { "caseSlug": "shinn-v-ramirez", "caseLabel": "Shinn v. Ramirez", "docketNumber": "20-1009", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "carson-v-makin", "caseLabel": "Carson v. Makin", "docketNumber": "20-1088", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-08" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-taylor", "caseLabel": "United States v. Taylor", "docketNumber": "20-1459", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "hughes-v-northwestern-university", "caseLabel": "Hughes v. Northwestern University", "docketNumber": "19-1401", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "patel-v-garland-att-y-gen", "caseLabel": "Patel v. Garland, Att'y Gen.", "docketNumber": "20-979", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-06" }, { "caseSlug": "dobbs-v-jackson", "caseLabel": "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization", "docketNumber": "19-1392", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-12-01" }, { "caseSlug": "american-hospital-assn-v-becerra", "caseLabel": "American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra", "docketNumber": "20-1114", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "cummings-v-premier-rehab", "caseLabel": "Cummings v. Premier Rehab", "docketNumber": "20-219", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-30" }, { "caseSlug": "becerra-v-empire-health-foundation", "caseLabel": "Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation", "docketNumber": "20-1312", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-29" }, { "caseSlug": "austin-v-reagan-national-advertising", "caseLabel": "Austin v. Reagan National Advertising", "docketNumber": "20-1029", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-10" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-vaello-madero", "caseLabel": "United States v. Vaello-Madero", "docketNumber": "20-303", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-09" }, { "caseSlug": "fbi-v-fazaga", "caseLabel": "FBI v. Fazaga", "docketNumber": "20-828", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "unicolors-inc-v-h-m-hennes-mauritz-l-p", "caseLabel": "Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.", "docketNumber": "20-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-08" }, { "caseSlug": "nysrpa-v-bruen", "caseLabel": "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen", "docketNumber": "20-843", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-03" }, { "caseSlug": "badgerow-v-walters", "caseLabel": "Badgerow v. Walters", "docketNumber": "20-1143", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "houston-community-college-sys-v-wilson", "caseLabel": "Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson", "docketNumber": "20-804", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-11-02" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-tsarnaev", "caseLabel": "United States v. Tsarnaev", "docketNumber": "20-443", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "babcock-v-kijakazi", "caseLabel": "Babcock v. Kijakazi", "docketNumber": "20-480", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-13" }, { "caseSlug": "cameron-v-emw-women-s-surgical-center", "caseLabel": "Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center", "docketNumber": "20-601", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "thompson-v-clark", "caseLabel": "Thompson v. Clark", "docketNumber": "20-659", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-12" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-zubaydah", "caseLabel": "United States v. Zubaydah", "docketNumber": "20-827", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-06" }, { "caseSlug": "hemphill-v-new-york", "caseLabel": "Hemphill v. New York", "docketNumber": "20-637", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "brown-v-davenport", "caseLabel": "Brown v. Davenport", "docketNumber": "20-826", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-05" }, { "caseSlug": "wooden-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Wooden v. United States", "docketNumber": "20-5279", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2021-10-04" } ], "portraitUrl": "/gavel/portraits/8543.jpeg" }, { "id": "ketanji-brown-jackson", "personId": 1609, "slug": "ketanji-brown-jackson", "name": "Ketanji Brown Jackson", "nameFirst": "Ketanji", "nameLast": "Jackson", "birthday": "1970-09-14", "birthdayPrecision": "day", "ageYears": 55, "appointed": "2022-06-30", "yearsOnCourt": 4, "office": "associate", "authored": 0, "joined": 0, "panelAppearances": 9, "credits": [ { "caseSlug": "fcc-v-consumers-research", "caseLabel": "FCC v. Consumers' Research", "docketNumber": "24-354", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2025-03-26" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-united-states", "caseLabel": "Trump v. United States", "docketNumber": "23-939", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-04-25" }, { "caseSlug": "trump-v-anderson", "caseLabel": "Trump v. Anderson", "docketNumber": "23-719", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-02-08" }, { "caseSlug": "loper-bright-v-raimondo", "caseLabel": "Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo", "docketNumber": "22-451", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2024-01-17" }, { "caseSlug": "united-states-v-rahimi", "caseLabel": "United States v. Rahimi", "docketNumber": "22-915", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-11-07" }, { "caseSlug": "cfpb-v-cfsa", "caseLabel": "CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association", "docketNumber": "22-448", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-10-03" }, { "caseSlug": "biden-v-nebraska", "caseLabel": "Biden v. Nebraska", "docketNumber": "22-506", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2023-02-28" }, { "caseSlug": "moore-v-harper", "caseLabel": "Moore v. Harper", "docketNumber": "21-1271", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-07" }, { "caseSlug": "303-creative-v-elenis", "caseLabel": "303 Creative LLC v. Elenis", "docketNumber": "21-476", "role": "panel", "dateFiled": "2022-12-05" } ], "portraitUrl": "/gavel/portraits/1609.jpeg" } ] }