Supreme Court of the United States, 2024

The Court held that an immigration judge's determination that the statutory "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard is not met is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(D), reversing the Third Circuit’s jurisdictional dismissal and remanding for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision in Lindke v. Freed. The Court held that the Ninth Circuit’s state‑action analysis for public officials’ social‑media use was inconsistent with the Court’s established test.

The Court held that a public official's social‑media activity constitutes state action for §1983 liability only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf and (2) purported to exercise that authority; applying this test, James Freed’s deletion and blocking of comments did not satisfy…

The Court, in a per curiam opinion, held that the Ninth Circuit's state‑action analysis for public officials' use of social‑media pages does not align with the approach articulated in Lindke v. Freed.

The Court held that a public official's social‑media activity is state action for §1983 liability only if the official both possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf and purported to exercise that authority in the post, and applied that test to find James Freed’s deletion and blocking of comments were…

The Court held that the criminal-history provision of the federal sentencing safety valve requires a defendant to satisfy all three listed conditions: having no more than four qualifying criminal-history points, no prior three-point offense, and no prior two-point violent offense.

The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the district court's judgment on Virginia Tech's bias response policy claims, and remanded with instructions to dismiss those claims as moot.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, holding that states lack constitutional authority to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against federal officeholders, including presidential candidates, and that enforcement power resides exclusively with Congress.

A unanimous Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's order excluding former President Trump from the 2024 Republican primary ballot, holding that the Constitution makes Congress, not the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates.

The Supreme Court held that the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald J. Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot because the Constitution vests enforcement of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment in Congress, not the States.

The Supreme Court held that choice‑of‑law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, subject only to narrow exceptions that did not apply here.

The Supreme Court held that a jury's verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is an acquittal for Double Jeopardy purposes, even when accompanied by inconsistent guilty verdicts. Accordingly, Georgia may not retry McElrath for malice murder.

The Supreme Court held that a jury's verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is an acquittal for Double Jeopardy purposes, barring a second prosecution on that charge even though the jury also returned a guilty‑but‑mentally‑ill verdict on other counts.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in this equal protection challenge to the Fairfax County School Board's 2020 overhaul of admissions at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology.

Justice Alito, in a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, declined to grant review of the Missouri Court of Appeals' for‑cause dismissal of jurors based on their religious beliefs.

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented from the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari. The dissent argues that the Fourth Circuit erred in its analysis of intentional racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, misapplying the disparate impact concept.

The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justice Jackson, denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that the petitioner did not satisfy the extraordinary‑circumstances standard for original habeas jurisdiction and declined to resolve the circuit split concerning the…

The Court held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act clearly waives sovereign immunity, allowing consumers to sue federal agencies like the USDA for false credit reporting. Justice Gorsuch authored a unanimous opinion. No concurring or dissenting opinions were filed.

The Court held that under the Sarbanes‑Oxley whistleblower provision, a plaintiff need only show that protected activity was a contributing factor to the adverse employment action and does not have to prove the employer acted with retaliatory intent.

The Court held that a whistleblower suing under the Sarbanes‑Oxley whistleblower provision need only show that protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse employment action and does not have to prove the employer acted with retaliatory intent.

The Court held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s provisions authorizing suits against “any person” and defining “person” to include governmental agencies constitute a clear waiver of sovereign immunity, allowing a consumer to sue the USDA for providing false credit information.

Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Kagan) dissents from the Supreme Court’s denial of a stay of execution and denial of certiorari in Smith v. Hamm. The dissent argues that Alabama’s novel nitrogen‑hypoxia execution method poses a substantial risk of severe pain and cruel and unusual punishment, and that the lower…