Supreme Court of the United States, 2023

Justice Kagan delivered the unanimous Court's opinion vacating the Ninth Circuit's judgment. The Court held that the Rogers threshold First Amendment test does not apply when an alleged infringer uses the challenged mark to identify the source of its own goods.

Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Court, held that False Claims Act scienter turns on defendants’ knowledge and subjective beliefs when they submit claims, not on a hypothetical objectively reasonable interpretation developed afterward.

Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous Court’s opinion holding that False Claims Act scienter turns on defendants’ knowledge and subjective beliefs when they submit claims, not on subsequently identified, objectively reasonable interpretations that could make those claims accurate.

Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett, held that the Clean Water Act covers adjacent wetlands only when they have a continuous surface connection to covered waters that makes the wetlands practically indistinguishable from those waters.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, held that Tyler plausibly alleged an unconstitutional taking when Hennepin County sold her condominium for $40,000 to satisfy a $15,000 tax debt and retained the $25,000 surplus.

Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett, held that the Clean Water Act covers only relatively permanent bodies of water and wetlands having a continuous surface connection to covered waters that makes them practically indistinguishable from those waters.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, held that Tyler plausibly alleged an unconstitutional taking when Hennepin County sold her condominium to satisfy a $15,000 tax debt and retained the additional $25,000.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, held that Tyler plausibly alleged a taking when the County sold her home to satisfy a tax debt and retained the surplus. She adequately pleaded financial injury despite possible additional debts, and Minnesota could not eliminate her traditional property interest…

Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett, held that the Clean Water Act covers relatively permanent bodies of water and wetlands with a continuous surface connection that makes them practically indistinguishable from covered waters.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Sixth Circuit improperly upheld the FDIC's sanctions against Calcutt after identifying legal errors in the agency's decision. A reviewing court generally must remand rather than uphold an agency's discretionary action on a rationale the agency did not adopt.

The Court, in a per curiam opinion, held that the Sixth Circuit improperly upheld the FDIC’s sanctions against Calcutt on a rationale the agency itself had not adopted. After identifying legal errors in the agency’s analysis, the Sixth Circuit should have remanded rather than independently determining that the record…

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, held that the first fair-use factor favors Goldsmith regarding AWF’s commercial licensing of Orange Prince to illustrate Condé Nast’s magazine about Prince.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the unanimous opinion holding that the exception to the IRS summons notice requirement in 26 U.S.C. §7609(c)(2)(D)(i) does not require the delinquent taxpayer to have a legal interest in the records or accounts sought.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court declined to decide whether §230 protected Google from plaintiffs’ terrorism-related claims because the complaint appeared to state little, if any, plausible claim independently of that provision.

The Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s order denying the States’ motion to intervene and remanded with instructions to dismiss that motion as moot, without providing further reasoning. Justice Jackson dissented from vacatur and would have dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded for reconsideration in light of Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh. Because the allegations supporting the plaintiffs' secondary-liability claims were materially identical to those in Twitter, and other claims appeared foreclosed by…

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the notice exception in 26 U.S.C. § 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) does not require a delinquent taxpayer to have a legal interest in the accounts or records summoned by the IRS.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, held that the first statutory fair-use factor favors Goldsmith because AWF’s commercial licensing of Orange Prince to illustrate a magazine about Prince shared substantially the same purpose as Goldsmith’s photograph…

Justice Gorsuch delivered the unanimous opinion holding that Amgen’s broad antibody claims failed the Patent Act’s enablement requirement. A specification must enable the full scope of the claimed invention, although reasonable experimentation is permissible and every embodiment need not be individually described.

The Court denied certiorari without addressing the merits of Smith’s Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissented and would have summarily reversed the Eleventh Circuit.

The Court held that a private person's influence over government and special relationship with government personnel do not, under the vague Margiotta standard, establish a duty of honest services under 18 U.S.C. §1346.

Justice Jackson's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)'s administrative-exhaustion requirement is nonjurisdictional and subject to waiver and forfeiture.

Justice Kagan's eight-Justice majority held that PROMESA does not categorically abrogate any sovereign immunity enjoyed by Puerto Rico's Financial Oversight and Management Board.

The Court held that a private person may owe the public a duty of honest services when acting as an actual government agent, but that political influence and a special relationship with government do not establish that duty under the vague standard used to instruct Percoco’s jury.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, held that PROMESA does not categorically abrogate any sovereign immunity enjoyed by Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board.

Justice Jackson’s majority opinion held that 8 U. S. C. §1252(d)(1)’s administrative-exhaustion requirement is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule subject to waiver and forfeiture.

Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, held that 18 U.S.C. §3231 supplies jurisdiction over Halkbank’s federal criminal prosecution and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies only to civil proceedings, not criminal…

Justice Jackson delivered the unanimous opinion holding that 11 U. S. C. § 363(m), which protects certain bankruptcy sales and leases from the effects of appellate reversal or modification, is not jurisdictional.

Justice Kavanaugh, writing for seven Justices, held that 18 U.S.C. § 3231 grants federal district courts jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution of Halkbank and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not confer immunity in criminal proceedings.

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, held that when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the limitations period for a §1983 procedural due process claim begins when that litigation ends…

Justice Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court, held that 11 U. S. C. §363(m) is not jurisdictional. Its restrictions concern the effects of appellate relief on certain bankruptcy sales and leases, not courts’ adjudicatory authority, and Congress did not clearly give the provision jurisdictional status.

Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion held that when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the limitations period for a § 1983 procedural due process challenge begins when that litigation ends, including disposition of a motion for rehearing.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, held that when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the limitations period for a § 1983 procedural due process challenge…

Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a unanimous Court in this original-jurisdiction action, held that New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact notwithstanding New York’s opposition.

Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a unanimous Court in an original-jurisdiction action, held that New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact despite New York's opposition.

Justice Kagan’s opinion for eight Justices held that the Exchange Act and FTC Act review schemes do not displace district courts’ federal-question jurisdiction over Axon’s and Cochran’s structural constitutional challenges.

Justice Kagan's opinion for eight Justices held that the Exchange Act and FTC Act do not displace federal district courts' jurisdiction over Axon's and Cochran's structural constitutional challenges.

The Court denied, without explanation, West Virginia’s application to vacate the injunction. It did not decide whether Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the State’s restrictions on participation in girls’ sports. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, held that the Quiet Title Act’s 12-year limitations period is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule.

The Court held that the Quiet Title Act’s 12-year limitations period is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, explained that the statute lacks a clear statement making the deadline jurisdictional and that prior decisions had…