Supreme Court of the United States, 2021

The Court held that Social Security disability claimants did not forfeit their Appointments Clause challenges by failing to raise them before agency administrative law judges. The inquisitorial character of the proceedings, the constitutional nature of the challenges, and the adjudicators’ inability to provide relief…

The Court affirmed, holding that sentencing a juvenile homicide offender to life without parole requires neither a separate finding of permanent incorrigibility nor an on-the-record explanation implicitly making that finding.

Justice Breyer, writing for a unanimous Court, held that §13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not authorize the FTC to seek, or courts to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.

The Court denied certiorari without explanation and did not decide the merits of Small’s Title VII religious-accommodation claim. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, dissented, arguing that the Court should review Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison’s de minimis-cost standard for undue hardship.

Justice Barrett, writing for a unanimous Court, overruled Florida’s exceptions to the Special Master’s report and dismissed this original action seeking an equitable apportionment of interstate waters.

The Court held that physical force applied to a person's body with intent to restrain constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure even if the person escapes. The officers therefore seized Torres when their bullets struck her.

Justice Kagan, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh, held that Montana and Minnesota could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Ford in suits arising from in-state accidents injuring residents, because Ford extensively advertised, sold, and serviced the vehicle models…

Justice Barrett, writing for the Court, held that FOIA’s deliberative process privilege protects the Services’ in-house draft biological opinions because they were predecisional and deliberative, rather than final agency decisions.

Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, held that FOIA’s deliberative process privilege protects the Services’ in-house draft biological opinions because they were predecisional and deliberative, even though they represented the Services’ last views…

Justice Barrett, writing for seven Justices, held that FOIA’s deliberative process privilege protects the Services’ in-house draft biological opinions because they were predecisional and deliberative, notwithstanding that they expressed the Services’ last views on an abandoned version of the EPA’s proposed rule.

Justice Barrett, writing for seven Justices, held that FOIA's deliberative process privilege protects the Services' in-house draft biological opinions because they were predecisional and deliberative, even though they were the Services' last views on an abandoned version of EPA's proposed rule.

Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the dismissal of King's Federal Tort Claims Act claims was a judgment on the merits capable of triggering the FTCA's judgment bar.

The Court denied both petitions for certiorari without explaining its reasons or deciding the constitutional merits, dismissed the intervention motions as moot, and granted the amicus-filing motions.

The Court denied certiorari without addressing the merits. Justice Thomas dissented, without any other Justice joining. He argued that regulatory takings doctrine lacks workable standards, pointing to the jury's finding of a taking and the Ninth Circuit's contrary conclusion on the same facts.