Supreme Court of the United States, 2025

Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, held that Texas and Fasken could not obtain Hobbs Act review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing decision because neither was a party to the licensing proceeding.

Justice Thomas's majority opinion held that challenges to EPA's 2022 denials of small-refinery exemption petitions belong in the D. C. Circuit. Each individual denial is a locally or regionally applicable action, regardless of EPA's decision to package the denials in omnibus notices.

The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson, affirmed the Sixth Circuit. It construed the Prison Litigation Reform Act to require a jury trial on exhaustion when disputed facts concerning exhaustion are intertwined with the merits of a claim protected by…

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…

Justice Thomas delivered a unanimous opinion holding that the CRSC statute gives the Secretary concerned authority to determine the validity of CRSC claims and the amount due, creating a separate settlement mechanism that displaces the Barring Act’s procedures and six-year limitations period.

Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court, holding that the CRSC statute confers authority to determine the validity and amount of CRSC claims and therefore creates a settlement mechanism that displaces the Barring Act’s procedures, including its six-year limitations period.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, held that schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to educational services are subject to the same standards as other disability-discrimination plaintiffs and need not meet the education-specific “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, held that ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims concerning educational services are governed by the same standards applicable in other disability-discrimination contexts, rather than a heightened “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard.

The Court granted the Government’s stay application, concluding that application of the stay factors warranted relief and allowing SSA to provide DOGE Team members access to the records at issue while the appeal proceeds.

The Supreme Court held that Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the gun manufacturers aided and abetted illegal firearm sales, so the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act bars the suit. The Court reversed the First Circuit and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Supreme Court held that Wisconsin's unemployment‑tax exemption statute, as applied to Catholic Charities, creates a denominational preference that violates the Establishment Clause and fails strict scrutiny, reversing the Wisconsin Supreme Court and remanding for further proceedings.

Justice Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court, held that Title VII does not permit courts to require majority-group plaintiffs to establish additional “background circumstances” when making a prima facie case of disparate treatment.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Thomas, held that a party seeking to reopen a final judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) to amend a complaint must establish extraordinary circumstances before invoking Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment standard.

The Court held that Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the gun manufacturers aided and abetted illegal firearm sales, so the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act's (PLCAA) general bar applies and the suit is barred.

The Supreme Court held that Wisconsin’s unemployment‑tax exemption statute, as applied to Catholic Charities, violates the First Amendment because it creates a denominational preference that must be subject to strict scrutiny and fails to meet that standard.

The Supreme Court held that relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) always requires extraordinary circumstances, even when the movant seeks to amend the complaint, and that this standard must be satisfied before any Rule 15(a) amendment analysis.

The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which imposes an additional evidentiary burden on majority‑group plaintiffs to establish a prima facie Title VII claim, is inconsistent with the text of Title VII and the Court’s precedents.

Justice Alito delivered the unanimous Court's opinion holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not impose an independent minimum-contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b), personal jurisdiction exists when an immunity exception applies and service is proper.

The Court held that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act personal jurisdiction exists whenever an immunity exception applies and service of process is proper, and that the statute does not require a separate minimum‑contacts analysis.

The Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor and joined by all nine justices, held that Wisconsin's unemployment‑compensation exemption statute, as applied to Catholic Charities Bureau and its subentities, violates the First Amendment because it creates a denominational preference that fails strict…

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, denied the applicants' request for a stay pending a petition for a writ of certiorari, emphasizing that the denial should not be read as an endorsement of the Washington Supreme Court's decision or its First Amendment interpretation.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Fourth Circuit's upholding of Maryland's ban on AR‑15 rifles. Justice Kavanaugh noted that denial does not signal agreement with the lower court and highlighted the ongoing debate over the "common use" test under the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving the Fifth Circuit's judgment in place. In a dissent, Justice Jackson argues that the Fifth Circuit erred by treating later discriminatory acts as merely the continued effects of earlier acts, contrary to established precedent that each discrete…

The Court granted the Government's application for a stay of the District Court's order terminating the CHNV parole program. Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented, arguing that the Government failed to demonstrate the required irreparable harm and that the balance of equities favored the respondents.

The Supreme Court held that NEPA does not require the Surface Transportation Board to analyze environmental effects of upstream oil drilling or downstream refining projects that are separate in time or place from the railroad project, and that the D.C.

The Court granted the Government's application for a stay of district court orders enjoining the President's removal of NLRB and MSPB members, finding the Government likely to succeed on the merits and that the balance of equities favored a stay.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Oklahoma Supreme Court because the justices were equally divided, leaving the lower court's decision in place.

The Per Curiam Court granted the petition for a temporary injunction, vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment, and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the detainees are entitled to more notice before removal.

The Court held that the Fifth Circuit lacked jurisdiction because appellate courts may review district court inaction that effectively denies an injunction, that AEA detainees are entitled to constitutionally adequate notice before removal, and that temporary injunctive relief may be granted to a putative class…

The Court held that the Fifth Circuit’s “moment‑of‑threat” rule, which limits an excessive‑force analysis to the precise instant of threat, is incompatible with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Courts must evaluate such claims under the totality‑of‑circumstances standard articulated in Graham v. Connor.

The Court held that the Fifth Circuit’s "moment-of-threat" rule, which limits an excessive‑force analysis to the precise instant an officer perceives a threat, is incompatible with the Fourth Amendment’s totality‑of‑the‑circumstances standard and therefore must be rejected.

The Supreme Court held that a federal civilian employee who is called to active duty under any provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay without needing to show a substantive connection between the service and the emergency.

The Court held that the phrase “during a national emergency” in 10 U.S.C. §101(a)(13)(B) imposes only a temporal condition, so a reservist who serves while a national emergency is ongoing is entitled to differential pay without showing a substantive connection to the emergency.

The Court held that it has jurisdiction under §1252 to review the petition and that the statutory term “days” in 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2) carries its specialized meaning, so a voluntary‑departure deadline that falls on a weekend or holiday extends to the next business day.

The Court held that the 60‑day voluntary‑departure deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(2) extends to the next business day when it falls on a weekend or legal holiday, and that the petition is within the jurisdiction of § 1252 to review that term of the final order of removal.

The Court issued an emergency injunction halting removal of a putative class of noncitizen detainees, but Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, arguing the Court lacked jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, that the applicants had not satisfied procedural requirements for emergency relief, and that the…

The Court, per curiam, vacated the District Court’s temporary restraining orders, construing them as appealable injunctions. It held that challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act must proceed through habeas corpus in the district of confinement, making venue improper in the District of Columbia for these…

The Court, per curiam, granted a stay pending appeal of the District Court's temporary restraining order requiring continued payment of education grants. It treated the order as an appealable preliminary injunction, concluded that the Government was likely to establish that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to…

The Supreme Court held that the FDA’s denial of pre‑market tobacco product applications was not arbitrary or capricious and vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, remanding for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Supreme Court held that the Food and Drug Administration’s denial of pre‑market tobacco product applications was not arbitrary or capricious and therefore vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment.