Editor's Note :

close editor's note Editor's Note :

Click here for important resources on Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court.
We're hosting a symposium on the Supreme Court's shadow docket. Click here to follow along.

October Term 2019

View this list sorted by case name.

October Sitting

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., No. 18-801 [Arg: 10.7.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 12.11.2019]

Holding: The PTO cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel under Section 145 of the Patent Act.
Ramos v. Louisiana, No. 18-5924 [Arg: 10.7.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.20.2020]

Holding: The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as incorporated against the states, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense.
Kahler v. Kansas, No. 18-6135 [Arg: 10.7.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: Due process does not require Kansas to adopt an insanity test that turns on a defendant’s ability to recognize that his crime was morally wrong.
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.15.2020]

Holding: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.15.2020]

Holding: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.15.2020]

Holding: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, No. 18-1334 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Constitution's appointments clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the president without the Senate’s advice and consent.
UTIER v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, No. 18-1521 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Constitution's appointments clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the president without the Senate’s advice and consent.
U.S. v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, No. 18-1514 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Constitution's appointments clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the president without the Senate’s advice and consent.
Aurelius Investment, LLC v. Puerto Rico, No. 18-1475 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Constitution's appointments clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the president without the Senate’s advice and consent.
Official Committee of Debtors v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, No. 18-1496 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Constitution's appointments clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the president without the Senate’s advice and consent.
Rotkiske v. Klemm, No. 18-328 [Arg: 10.16.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 12.10.2019]

Holding: Absent the application of an equitable doctrine, the statute of limitations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d), begins to run when the alleged FDCPA violation occurs, not when the violation is discovered.
Kansas v. Garcia, No. 17-834 [Arg: 10.16.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.3.2020]

Holding: The Kansas statutes under which respondents, three unauthorized aliens, were convicted—for fraudulently using another person’s Social Security number on state and federal tax-withholding forms submitted to their employers—are not expressly preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986; and respondent’s argument that those law are preempted by implication is rejected.

November Sitting

Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725 [Arg: 11.4.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.23.2020]

Holding: In determining eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime, an offense listed in 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(2) committed during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.
Kansas v. Glover, No. 18-556 [Arg: 11.4.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.6.2020]

Holding: When a police officer lacks information negating an inference that a person driving is the vehicle’s owner, an investigative traffic stop made after running the vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Allen v. Cooper, No. 18-877 [Arg: 11.5.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: Congress lacked authority to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits in the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990.
CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd., No. 18-565 [Arg: 11.5.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.30.2020]

Holding: The plain language of the safe-berth clause in the parties’ subcharter agreement—requiring the petitioners to designate a safe berth for a vessel to load and discharge cargo—establishes a warranty of safety.
Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165 [Arg: 11.6.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 1.14.2020]

Holding: This case, about whether plaintiffs can state a claim against retirement-plan fiduciaries for breach of duty of prudence by alleging that the costs of undisclosed fraud grow over time, is vacated and remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit for a determination on whether to consider two arguments raised in the briefs at the Supreme Court but not in the lower courts.
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260 [Arg: 11.6.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.23.2020]

Holding: The Clean Water Act, which forbids “any addition” of any pollutant from “any point source” to “navigable waters” without the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency permit, requires a permit when there is a direct discharge from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.18.2020]

Holding: The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.18.2020]

Holding: The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Wolf v. Vidal, No. 18-589 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.18.2020]

Holding: The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Hernandez v. Mesa, No. 17-1678 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.25.2020]

Holding: The holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting.
Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, No. 18-1171 [Arg: 11.13.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: A plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in contracting under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 bears the burden of showing that race was a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and that burden remains constant over the life of the lawsuit.
Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, No. 18-938 [Arg: 11.13.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 1.14.2020]

Holding: A bankruptcy court’s order unreservedly denying relief from the automatic stay constitutes a final, immediately appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

December Sitting

Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., No. 18-1150 [Arg: 12.2.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.27.2020]

Holding: Under the government edicts doctrine, the annotations beneath the statutory provisions in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are ineligible for copyright protection.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, No. 18-280 [Arg: 12.2.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.27.2020]

Holding: Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule on transporting firearms is moot, and any claim for damages with respect to that rule may be addressed in the first instance by the court of appeals and the district court on remand.
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, No. 17-1498 [Arg: 12.3.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.20.2020]

Holding: The Montana Supreme Court erred by holding that respondent landowners were not potentially responsible parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and thus did not need the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval to take remedial action.
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 18-1269 [Arg: 12.3.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.25.2020]

Holding: The rule of In re Bob Richards Chrysler-Plymouth Corp., which specifies how federal tax refund proceeds should be allocated among members of an affiliated group of corporations that file a consolidated return, is not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking.
Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943 [Arg: 12.4.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend a habeas court’s judgment is not a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b).
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, No. 18-1116 [Arg: 12.4.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.26.2020]

Holding: Under the requirement in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that plaintiffs with “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach must file suit within three years of gaining that knowledge, a plaintiff does not necessarily have “actual knowledge” of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading.
Thryv v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, No. 18-916 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.20.2020]

Holding: Federal patent law does not allow an appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision to institute a procedure for challenging the validity of a patent after finding that a one-year time bar does not apply.
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, No. 18-776 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: Because the phrase “questions of law” in the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Limited Review Provision, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ “factual” due diligence claims for equitable tolling purposes.
Ovalles v. Barr, No. 18-1015 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: Because the phrase “questions of law” in the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Limited Review Provision, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ “factual” due diligence claims for equitable tolling purposes.
Moda Health Plan v. U.S., No. 18-1028 [Arg: 12.10.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.27.2020]

Holding: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s now expired “Risk Corridors” statute—which set a formula for calculating payments to healthcare insurers for unexpectedly unprofitable plans during the first three years of online insurance marketplaces—created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount of their computed losses; and the petitioners properly relied on the Tucker Act to sue for damages in the Court of Federal Claims.
Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S., No. 18-7739 [Arg: 12.10.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.26.2020]

Holding: Holguin-Hernandez's district-court argument for a specific sentence (nothing or less than 12 months) preserved his claim on appeal that the sentence imposed was unreasonably long.
Maine Community Health Options v. U.S., No. 18-1023 [Arg: 12.10.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.27.2020]

Holding: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s now expired “Risk Corridors” statute—which set a formula for calculating payments to healthcare insurers for unexpectedly unprofitable plans during the first three years of online insurance marketplaces—created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount of their computed losses; and the petitioners properly relied on the Tucker Act to sue for damages in the Court of Federal Claims.
Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. U.S., No. 18-1038 [Arg: 12.10.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.27.2020]

Holding: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s now expired “Risk Corridors” statute—which set a formula for calculating payments to healthcare insurers for unexpectedly unprofitable plans during the first three years of online insurance marketplaces—created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount of their computed losses; and the petitioners properly relied on the Tucker Act to sue for damages in the Court of Federal Claims.
McKinney v. Arizona, No. 18-1109 [Arg: 12.11.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.25.2020]

Holding: When a capital sentencing error under Eddings v. Oklahoma is found on collateral review, a state appellate court may conduct the reweighing of aggravating and mitigating ecidence, as permitted by Clemons v. Mississippi.
Monasky v. Taglieri, No. 18-935 [Arg: 12.11.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.25.2020]

Holding: A child’s habitual residence under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case, not on categorical requirements such as an actual agreement between the parents.

January Sitting

Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group Inc., No. 18-1086 [Arg: 1.13.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 5.14.2020]

Holding: Because the trademark action at issue challenged different conduct—and raised different claims—from an earlier action between the parties, Marcel cannot preclude Lucky Brand from raising new defenses, including a defense that Lucky Brand failed to press fully in the earlier suit.
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 17-1712 [Arg: 1.13.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: Participants in a defined-benefit retirement plan who are guaranteed a fixed payment each month regardless of the plan’s value or its fiduciaries’ investment decisions lack Article III standing to bring a lawsuit against the fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., No. 18-1233 [Arg: 1.14.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.23.2020]

Holding: A plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to an award of profits.
Kelly v. U.S., No. 18-1059 [Arg: 1.14.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 5.7.2020]

Holding: Because the scheme to reduce the number of George Washington Bridge toll lanes dedicated to Fort Lee, New Jersey, morning commuters as political retribution against Fort Lee’s mayor did not aim to obtain money or property from the federal Port Authority, William Baroni and Bridget Kelly could not have violated the federal-program fraud or wire fraud laws.
Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882 [Arg: 1.15.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.6.2020]

Holding: The plain meaning of 29 U. S. C. § 633a(a), the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age, but but-for causation is important in determining the appropriate remedy that may be obtained.
Shular v. U.S., No. 18-6662 [Arg: 1.21.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.26.2020]

Holding: The definition of in “serious drug offense” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) requires only that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute; it does not require that the state offense match certain generic offenses.
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, No. 18-1048 [Arg: 1.21.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories to those agreements.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195 [Arg: 1.22.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.30.2020]

Holding: The application of the Montana Constitution’s “no-aid” provision to a state program providing tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the free exercise clause.

February Sitting

Opati v. Republic of Sudan, No. 17-1268 [Arg: 2.24.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 5.18.2020]

Holding: Plaintiffs in a suit against a foreign state for personal injury or death caused by acts of terrorism under 28 U. S. C. § 1605A(c) may seek punitive damages for preenactment conduct.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, No. 18-1587 [Arg: 2.24.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.15.2020]

Holding: Because the Department of the Interior’s decision to assign responsibility over the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service did not transform the land over which the Trail passes into land within the National Park System, the Forest Service had the authority to issue the special use permit.
U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, No. 18-1584 [Arg: 2.24.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.15.2020]

Holding: Because the Department of the Interior’s decision to assign responsibility over the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service did not transform the land over which the Trail passes into land within the National Park System, the Forest Service had the authority to issue the special use permit.
U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67 [Arg: 2.25.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 5.7.2020]

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit panel’s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion when the court reached out to decide a question never raised by the respondent, namely, whether 8 U. S. C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad.
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369 [Arg: 2.26.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.8.2020]

Holding: A Prison Litigation Reform Act provision that generally prevents a prisoner from bringing suit in forma pauperis — that is, without first paying the filing fee — if he has had three or more prior suits “dismissed on the ground[ ] that [they] ... fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” refers to any dismissal for failure to state a claim, whether with prejudice or without.
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, No. 19-161 [Arg: 3.2.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.25.2020]

Holding: As applied in this case, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(e)(2)—which limits the habeas review obtainable by a noncitizen detained for expedited removal—does not violate the suspension or due process clauses.
Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432 [Arg: 3.2.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: Title 8 U. S. C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a removable noncitizen’s factual challenges to an order denying relief under the international Convention Against Torture, which protects noncitizens from removal to a country where they would likely face torture.
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 19-7 [Arg: 3.3.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.29.2020]

Holding: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership by a single director removable only for inefficiency, neglect or malfeasance violates the separation of powers.
Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 18-1501 [Arg: 3.3.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.22.2020]

Holding: In a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action, a disgorgement award that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable relief permissible under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5).
Russo v. June Medical Services LLC, No. 18-1460 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.29.2020]

Holding: Louisiana's Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, is unconstitutional.
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, No. 18-1323 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.29.2020]

Holding: Louisiana's Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, is unconstitutional.

May Sitting

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19-46 [Arg: 5.4.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.30.2020]

Holding: A term styled “generic.com” is a generic name for a class of goods or services—and thus ineligible for federal trademark protection—only if the term has that meaning to consumers.
U.S. Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, No. 19-177 [Arg: 5.5.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.29.2020]

Holding: Because the foreign affiliates of American NGOs possess no First Amendment rights, the requirement for funding under the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act that organizations have “a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking,” as applied those foreign affiliates, does not violate the Constitution.
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., No. 19-631 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.6.2020]

Holding: The exception for calls to collect government debt from a federal ban on robocalls to cellphones violates the First Amendment, but the exception is severable from the rest of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-431 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.8.2020]

Holding: The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had authority under the Affordable Care Act to promulgate rules exempting employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees.
Trump v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-454 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.8.2020]

Holding: The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had authority under the Affordable Care Act to promulgate rules exempting employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.8.2020]

Holding: The "ministerial exception" under the religion clauses of the First Amendment forecloses the adjudication of employment-discrimination claims of Catholic school teachers in these cases.
St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.8.2020]

Holding: The "ministerial exception" under the religion clauses of the First Amendment forecloses the adjudication of employment-discrimination claims of Catholic school teachers in these cases.
McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.9.2020]

Holding: For purposes of the Major Crimes Act, land throughout much of eastern Oklahoma reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains a Native American territory.
Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.9.2020]

Holding: Article II and the supremacy clause of the Constitution do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting president.
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.9.2020]

Holding: Although congressional subpoenas for the president’s information may be enforceable, the court below in this case did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by subpoenas from the House of Representatives seeking President Donald Trump's financial records.
Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.9.2020]

Holding: Although congressional subpoenas for the president’s information may be enforceable, the court below in this case did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by subpoenas from the House of Representatives seeking President Donald Trump's financial records.
Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465 [Arg: 5.13.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.6.2020]

Holding: A state may enforce an elector’s pledge to support their party’s nominee – and the state voters’ choice – for president in the Electoral College.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca, No. 19-518 [Arg: 5.13.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.6.2020]

Holding: The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit is reversed for the reasons stated in Chiafalo v. Washington.

Decided without oral argument

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano, No. 18-921 [ Decided 2.24.2020]

Holding: A Puerto Rico trial court had no jurisdiction to issue payment and seizure orders after a pension benefits proceeding was removed to federal district court but before the proceeding was remanded back to the Puerto Rico court; thus the orders are void.
Andrus v. Texas, No. 18-9674 [ Decided 6.15.2020]

Holding: Andrus demonstrated his counsel's deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington, and the case is remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas to consider whether Andrus was prejudiced by the inadequacy of counsel.
Thompson v. Hebdon, No. 19-122 [ Decided 11.25.2019]

Holding: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to revisit whether Alaska’s political contribution limits are consistent with this Court’s First Amendment precedents.
Davis v. U.S., No. 19-5421 [ Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: There is no legal basis for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s practice of declining to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error.
Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, No. 19A1016 [ Decided 4.6.2020]

Holding: The District Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed to the extent it requires Wisconsin to count absentee ballots postmarked after April 7, 2020, the date of the state’s election.
Barr v. Lee, No. 20A8 [ Decided 7.14.2020]

Holding: The July 13, 2020, order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia preliminarily enjoining the executions of four federal prisoners is vacated.

Cases dismissed from merits docket

Mathena v. Malvo, No. 18-217 [Arg: 10.16.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in concluding—in direct conflict with Virginia’s highest court and other courts—that a decision of the Supreme Court, Montgomery v. Louisiana, addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision, Miller v. Alabama, applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question.
Walker v. U.S., No. 19-373

Issue(s): Whether a criminal offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness can qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Term Snapshot
At a Glance
Awards