Supreme Court of the United States, 2023

Justice Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for certiorari, contending that the lower courts improperly applied nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) and that such application raises serious due‑process concerns.

The Supreme Court denied Florida's application for a stay of the district court's preliminary injunction, finding that the State did not show a reasonable probability that the Court would grant certiorari and that the issue presented is not a likely vehicle for review.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Sotomayor noted that the question of whether the Federal Tort Claims Act’s judgment bar precludes other claims in the same suit remains unsettled and warrants further analysis, but the Court declined to review the Sixth Circuit’s decision.

The Supreme Court denied the application for a stay of the lower court's order concerning the Florida‑Seminole Tribe gaming compact and vacated the Chief Justice’s interim order, noting that the equal‑protection issues raised by the state law were not squarely presented.

This document is a Statement of Justice Alito issued with the Court's September 8, 2023 order in Moore v. United States, a case on certiorari from the Ninth Circuit, responding to Senator Durbin's request that he recuse because attorney David B. Rivkin, Jr.

The Court held that Colorado cannot apply its public accommodations law to compel a website designer to create customized expressive wedding websites conveying messages she rejects.

The Supreme Court held that the borrowers lack Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student‑loan forgiveness plan because they cannot show that their injury is fairly traceable to the plan, and therefore vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Roberts and others. In a brief statement, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, noted that the case raised the question of whether the Equal Protection Clause permits the use of race or ethnicity as a proxy for health risk in allocating medical…

The Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving the lower court's grant of qualified immunity intact. Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the Eighth Circuit erred in applying summary‑judgment standards and in granting qualified immunity, and that the case should be reversed to allow a jury trial…

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari because the Washington Supreme Court decision was interlocutory and did not present a final federal issue for review. The denial notes concerns about due‑process and equal‑protection implications but does not address the merits of the lower court's ruling.

The Court held that the relevant Lanham Act provisions do not apply extraterritorially because they contain no clear indication that Congress intended them to govern foreign conduct.

The Court held that SFFA had organizational standing and that Harvard’s and UNC’s race-conscious admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause. The programs failed strict scrutiny because their goals were not sufficiently measurable, their use of race could disadvantage some applicants and rely on racial…

The Supreme Court held that 15 U.S.C. §§1114(1)(a) and 1125(a)(1) are not extraterritorial and apply only to trademark use in commerce that occurs within the United States, vacating the Tenth Circuit’s judgment and remanding for further proceedings.

The Court held that Pennsylvania’s registration statute, which conditions the right to do business on a corporation’s consent to general jurisdiction, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Accordingly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s judgment was vacated and the case remanded.

The Court held that the First Amendment requires a subjective mens‑rea in true‑threat prosecutions and that recklessness is the constitutionally sufficient standard, vacating the Colorado Court of Appeals judgment and remanding for further proceedings consistent with this rule.

The Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the state supreme court’s prior judgment because the judgment continued to bar use of the 2021 congressional maps and reversal could provide the legislative defendants complete relief.

The Court vacated the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded because Pennsylvania Fire controls: Norfolk Southern registered to do business in Pennsylvania with notice that registration subjected it to suit there on any claim.

The Court affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court's judgment striking down the 2021 congressional maps, holding that it has jurisdiction to review that judgment and that the Federal Elections Clause does not give state legislatures exclusive authority free from state constitutional constraints.

The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires the State to prove, in true-threats cases, that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements, but that recklessness is the maximum showing required.

The Court held that Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge federal immigration-enforcement guidelines on the ground that the Executive should arrest more noncitizens.

The Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is not facially overbroad because its terms “encourage” and “induce” are to be read as specialized criminal‑law terms referring only to purposeful solicitation or facilitation of unlawful immigration acts.

The Court held that admitting a nontestifying codefendant's testimonial confession did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the confession was modified to avoid directly identifying Samia and the trial court gave a proper limiting instruction.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Barrett joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, held that 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) prohibits purposeful solicitation or facilitation of specific unlawful immigration acts, rather than encouragement in its ordinary, broader sense.

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, held that a district court must stay its pretrial and trial proceedings during an interlocutory appeal under 9 U. S. C. §16(a) from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration.

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, held that Texas and Louisiana lacked Article III standing to challenge federal immigration-enforcement guidelines on the ground that they required insufficient arrests.

The Court held that when a district court denies a motion to compel arbitration, the district court must stay all pre‑trial and trial proceedings while an interlocutory appeal of that arbitrability decision under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a) is pending.

The Court held that the 1868 treaty reserved water necessary to accomplish the Navajo Reservation's purpose but imposed no affirmative duty on the United States to assess the Tribe's water needs, provide an accounting, or develop a plan to secure water.

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, held that the 1868 treaty reserved water necessary for the Navajo Reservation but did not require the United States to assess the Tribe’s water needs, provide an accounting, develop a plan, or otherwise take affirmative steps…

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson, held that an offense may relate to obstruction of justice under 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43)(S) without requiring a pending investigation or proceeding.

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson, held that an offense may relate to obstruction of justice under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(S) without requiring a pending investigation or proceeding.

The Court held that whether a civil RICO plaintiff alleges a domestic injury depends on the circumstances surrounding the injury, not categorically on the plaintiff’s residence. Smagin adequately alleged a domestic injury because racketeering activity largely occurring in or directed from California impaired his…

Justice Kagan’s opinion for an eight-Justice majority held that the Government may seek dismissal of a False Claims Act qui tam action over the relator’s objection only after intervening, but intervention may occur either during the initial seal period or later upon good cause.

Justice Kagan's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, held that the Government may seek dismissal of a False Claims Act qui tam action over the relator's objection only after intervening, but intervention may occur either during the initial…

Justice Alito delivered the unanimous Court's opinion affirming the Eleventh Circuit. The Court held that the Constitution permits retrial after a conviction is set aside because the trial occurred in an improper venue before a jury drawn from the wrong district.

Justice Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the Constitution permits retrial after a conviction is overturned because the trial occurred in an improper venue before a jury drawn from the wrong district.

Chief Justice Roberts's opinion affirmed both preliminary injunctions, holding that the plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that Alabama's congressional map violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act under Thornburg v. Gingles.

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and—except for Part III–B–1—Kavanaugh, affirmed the preliminary injunctions against Alabama’s congressional map because plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving vote dilution under §2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Justice Kagan, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the Rogers threshold test does not apply when an alleged infringer uses a challenged mark to identify the source of its own goods. Such infringement claims turn on likelihood of confusion, with parody relevant to that analysis.

Justice Sotomayor, writing for eight Justices, held that a defendant uses another person’s means of identification in relation to a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1) only when that use is at the crux of what makes the conduct criminal, rather than an ancillary feature of billing.

Justice Sotomayor delivered the Court's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. The Court held that aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C.