Supreme Court of the United States, 2024

Per Curiam, the Court dismissed the petition for a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. No separate opinions were filed.

The Court held that a Secretary's revocation of an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. §1155 is a discretionary action barred from judicial review by 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), rejecting the petitioner's arguments that the statute imposes an ongoing duty to reassess approvals or that the presumption of…

Justice Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court, held that revocation of an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. §1155 is discretionary and therefore barred from judicial review where §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies, including when revocation rests on a sham-marriage determination.

The Court denied certiorari without deciding the merits. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, agreed with denial because of the case’s interlocutory posture but argued that Hawaii’s former firearms-licensing regime was unconstitutional and that Wilson need not have applied for a license before raising a Second…

The Court, per curiam, vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment affirming relief from Smith’s death sentence and remanded because the appellate opinion did not clearly explain how it evaluated his multiple IQ scores.

The Court, in a per curiam opinion, vacated the Eleventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for clarification of the standard for evaluating multiple IQ scores in death‑penalty determinations. No concurring or dissenting opinions were filed.

In a statement authored by Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, the Court denied the application for a stay, concluding that the lower court's judgment involved only two votes in a completed primary and that a stay would not impose binding obligations on Pennsylvania election officials.

The Supreme Court denied Roberson's application for a stay of execution and denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court held that a stay requires a showing of a significant possibility of success on the merits of a federal claim, which Roberson failed to demonstrate.

The Court denied all applications for stay of the EPA rule challenges. Justice Kavanaugh authored the opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Thomas would have granted the stays, and Justice Alito took no part.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented, arguing that the Eleventh Circuit unreasonably deferred to the Georgia Supreme Court’s factual findings under AEDPA despite clear Batson violations, and that the Court should have granted…

The Court, in a per curiam opinion, denied the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC. Justice Thomas filed a dissent, arguing that the Court’s intelligible‑principle test for congressional delegations is constitutionally inadequate and that the petition presents an important…

Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court, denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, noting the serious allegations of prosecutorial misconduct but concluding the case does not present a clear division of authority for the Court to resolve.

The Court, in a per curiam order, denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, filed a dissent arguing that Arizona's mandatory life‑without‑parole sentencing scheme for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment and that the Court should have granted certiorari…

The Court denied the petitions for writs of certiorari. Justice Alito would have granted the petitions and filed a concurring in the judgment. Justices Kavanaugh and Sotomayor dissented, arguing the petitions should be granted.

The Court denied certiorari without deciding whether a conviction resting on subsequently discredited forensic testimony violates due process. Justice Sotomayor, writing alone in a statement respecting the denial, agreed that review was premature because the constitutional question had not sufficiently developed in…

The Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits' rulings and remanded the cases because the appellate courts failed to conduct the required facial analysis of Florida’s and Texas’s social‑media statutes under First Amendment principles.

The Court held that an Administrative Procedure Act claim accrues under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action, not when the agency action becomes final or is published.

The Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits' judgments and remanded the cases because the appellate courts failed to conduct a proper facial First Amendment analysis of Florida and Texas statutes regulating social‑media platforms.

The Court vacated the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits' judgments and remanded the cases because the appellate courts failed to conduct the proper facial First Amendment analysis of Florida's and Texas social‑media statutes.

The Supreme Court held that a former President enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct within his core constitutional powers and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, but no immunity for unofficial conduct. The Court vacated the D.C.

The Court held that a former President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority and is entitled to at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, but has no immunity for unofficial conduct. The Court vacated the D.C.

The Court held that to convict under 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2), the government must show the defendant impaired the availability or integrity of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, limiting the statute's reach to evidence‑related obstruction rather than all obstructive conduct.

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise independent judgment on statutory questions and prohibits binding deference to an agency merely because a statute is ambiguous.

The Supreme Court granted the applicants’ applications for a stay, halting enforcement of EPA’s Good Neighbor Federal Implementation Plan while the challenges proceed. The Court found that EPA likely acted arbitrarily and capriciously because it failed to provide a reasoned explanation for how the plan would function…

The Court held that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud, rejecting the public‑rights exception. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit’s judgment vacating the SEC’s in‑house order is affirmed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this…

The Supreme Court granted the applicants' applications for a stay, halting enforcement of EPA's Good Neighbor Federal Implementation Plan pending review in the D.C. Circuit and any certiorari petition.

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari before judgment in Moyle v. United States and vacated the stay it had previously entered. The Court held that the cases were no longer suitable for early resolution because the parties' positions and the underlying law had changed.

The Supreme Court granted the applicants' applications for a stay, halting enforcement of EPA's Good Neighbor Federal Implementation Plan pending review in the D.C. Circuit and any certiorari petition.

The Court dismissed the writs of certiorari as improvidently granted and vacated the stay, sending the case back to the lower courts without deciding the substantive preemption issue between EMTALA and Idaho law.

The Supreme Court held that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have Article III standing to seek an injunction against any government defendant, and therefore reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Court held that when a prosecution expert conveys an absent analyst's out-of-court statements to support the expert's opinion, those statements are admitted for their truth when the opinion depends on their accuracy.

The Court denied the States’ motion to enter a consent decree because it would dispose of the United States’ valid Rio Grande Compact claims without its consent, affirming that a consent decree cannot extinguish the claims of a non‑consenting intervenor.

The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) may constitutionally disarm, temporarily, a person whom a court has found to pose a credible threat to another’s physical safety. Historical surety and going-armed laws established a sufficiently similar tradition, and the statute was constitutional as applied to Rahimi…

The Court held that the United States has valid Rio Grande Compact claims and that the proposed consent decree would improperly dispose of those claims without the government's consent, so the states' motion to enter the decree was denied.

The Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), which bars firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic-violence restraining orders containing credible-threat findings, does not violate the Second Amendment on its face: an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of…

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment that the government’s expert testimony that most drug couriers know they are transporting drugs did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b).

The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case, holding that the circuit erred by requiring plaintiff Gonzalez to produce specific comparator evidence to satisfy the Nieves exception.

The Supreme Court upheld the Mandatory Repatriation Tax, holding that Congress may attribute the realized and undistributed income of an American‑controlled foreign corporation to its U.S. shareholders and tax those shareholders without apportionment.

The Supreme Court affirmed Diaz's conviction, holding that an expert's testimony that most drug couriers know they are transporting drugs does not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b).

The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Circuit erred by requiring plaintiffs to produce specific comparator evidence to satisfy the Nieves exception. The Court clarified that any objective evidence showing that similarly situated individuals not engaged in protected speech were not arrested suffices.