Supreme Court of the United States, 2025

The Court, in an unsigned opinion, denied the Government’s application to stay an order barring deployment of the National Guard in Illinois. At this preliminary stage, the Court concluded that “regular forces” in 10 U.S.C.

The Court, in an unsigned opinion, denied the Government’s application to stay the order barring National Guard deployment in Illinois. It concluded that “regular forces” in 10 U.S.C.

The Court granted Texas's application to stay the District Court's injunction against its 2025 congressional map pending appeal. On a preliminary evaluation, the Court concluded that Texas was likely to succeed because the District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith and failed to draw a…

In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Fourth Circuit abused its discretion by granting habeas relief on a constitutional claim Sweeney had not asserted and the State had not had an opportunity to address.

The Court denied certiorari without deciding the merits of the Federal Tort Claims Act claim or reconsidering the Feres doctrine. Justice Sotomayor, writing alone respecting the denial, criticized Feres but supported denying review because statutory stare decisis, reliance interests, and Congress’s consideration of…

The Court denied certiorari without addressing the merits. Justice Gorsuch would have granted review. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented from the denial, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act prohibited the prison-construction injunction and independently required its termination unless the…

The unsigned Court granted the Government’s application to stay the District Court’s preliminary injunction against its policy requiring new passports to display sex at birth, pending appeal and any timely sought Supreme Court review.

The Court denied Boyd’s application for a stay of execution and petition for certiorari without explaining its reasons or deciding the merits of his Eighth Amendment challenge to execution by nitrogen hypoxia. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented.

The Court denied Boyd’s application for a stay of execution and petition for certiorari without explaining its reasons or deciding the merits of his Eighth Amendment challenge. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented.

The Court denied Boyd’s application for a stay of execution and petition for certiorari without explaining its reasoning or resolving the merits of his Eighth Amendment challenge. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented.

The Court denied Crawford’s application for a stay of execution and petition for certiorari without explaining its reasons or deciding the merits. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented. She would have granted both requests to address whether McCoy v.

The Court denied certiorari without explaining its reasons or deciding the merits. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented. She would vacate and remand for clarification of whether the Eleventh Circuit applied AEDPA deference when determining whether ineffective assistance of appellate…

The Court denied certiorari without addressing the merits. Justice Gorsuch, writing alone in a statement respecting the denial, agreed that vehicle problems warranted denying review but urged the Court to reconsider Bombolis in a suitable case.

The Court granted the Government’s application to stay the District Court’s judgment insofar as it set aside the Secretary’s vacatur of the Venezuelan TPS extension and termination of Venezuelan TPS. The stay continues through appellate review and any timely sought Supreme Court review.

In an unsigned order, the Court stayed the District Court’s preliminary injunction insofar as it required the Executive to obligate approximately $4 billion covered by the President’s August 28 rescission message.

The Court granted the Government’s application to stay the District Court’s July 11, 2025 order pending appeal and any timely petition for certiorari, without explaining its reasoning or deciding the merits.

The Court denied NetChoice’s application to vacate a stay without explaining its reasoning. Justice Kavanaugh concurred, with no other Justice joining his opinion. He concluded that NetChoice had not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favored interim relief, although he believed NetChoice…

The Court granted a stay of the District Court’s order pending appeal and any timely sought Supreme Court review. Applying Trump v. Wilcox, the Court concluded that the Government faced greater harm from allowing removed Consumer Product Safety Commission members to exercise executive power than the members faced from…

The Court granted the Government’s application to stay the District of Massachusetts’s May 22, 2025 preliminary injunction pending appeal and any timely petition for certiorari, without explaining its reasoning.

The Court granted the Government’s application to stay the District Court’s preliminary injunction concerning efforts to dismantle the Department of Education, pending appellate proceedings and any timely petition for certiorari. The Court provided no reasoning and did not decide the merits.

The Court granted the Government’s application to stay the District Court’s preliminary injunction pending appellate review and any timely sought Supreme Court review, without explaining its reasoning or deciding the merits. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented.

The Court denied certiorari without deciding the merits. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a statement respecting the denial explaining that the case was a poor vehicle for deciding whether parents have a federal constitutional right to know about and participate in their minor child's abortion decision.

The Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Thomas filed a concurring statement raising concerns about the First Circuit's application of the Pickering‑Garcetti framework to pre‑employment speech, emphasizing that tone should not diminish First Amendment protection.

The Court held per curiam that Bivens does not supply a damages cause of action for an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against federal prison officials. Such a claim presents a new Bivens context, and special factors counsel against extending the remedy: Congress has legislated extensively concerning prisoner…

Justice Barrett, writing for six Justices, held that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts’ equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 because they lack a sufficiently analogous founding-era equitable remedy.

The Court restored the consolidated appeals to the calendar for reargument, leaving the merits unresolved and stating that a later order would schedule argument and identify any additional questions for supplemental briefing. Justice Thomas dissented without any noted joiners.

Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, held that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts’ equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Justice Barrett’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, held that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts’ equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, held that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts' equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, held that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts’ equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, held that Gutierrez has Article III standing to challenge Texas’s postconviction DNA-testing procedures under §1983. Under Reed v. Goertz, declaratory relief would redress his injury by removing allegedly unconstitutional barriers to testing; standing must be assessed…

The Court held that Gutierrez has Article III standing to challenge Texas's postconviction DNA-testing procedures under § 1983 and that the prosecutor's continued refusal to permit testing did not moot the case. Applying Reed v.

The Court held that the PSJVTA’s provision for personal jurisdiction over the PLO and PA in Antiterrorism Act suits complies with the Fifth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment’s minimum-contacts standard does not govern federal jurisdiction authorized by federal statute because the Federal Government possesses broader…

The Court affirmed the dismissal of Stanley’s ADA claim. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, held that a Title I plaintiff must have held or desired a job and been able to perform its essential functions, with or without…

Justice Gorsuch’s opinion for a seven-Justice majority in Parts I and II held that an ADA Title I plaintiff must plead and prove that, when the employer allegedly discriminated, she held or desired a job and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation; the Court affirmed dismissal of…

The Court held that fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval of California’s vehicle-emissions regulations. Lost fuel sales constitute monetary injury caused by the regulations, and record evidence combined with commonsense economic inferences establishes that invalidating the regulations…

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Barrett, held that district courts revoking supervised release under 18 U. S. C. § 3583(e) may not consider the retributive sentencing factor in § 3553(a)(2)(A). Congress's enumeration of eight sentencing factors, while omitting two, makes the list exhaustive.

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Barrett, held that the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval of California’s vehicle-emissions regulations.

The Court held that each denial of an individual small-refinery exemption petition is a locally or regionally applicable EPA action, but that the denials here were based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect, placing review in the D. C. Circuit under the Clean Air Act.

The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson, held that Texas and Fasken are not parties aggrieved under the Hobbs Act because they neither were license applicants nor successfully intervened in the NRC licensing proceeding; therefore they lack…