The Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented, arguing that the Court should grant certiorari to resolve the split among circuits on whether a certificate of appealability can be denied despite a judge’s vote to grant it.
Supreme Court of the United States, 2025
Published opinions from 2025. The case name opens the case page.
2025 opinions
The Supreme Court held that the ATF's 2022 regulations covering weapon parts kits and partially complete frames or receivers are facially consistent with the Gun Control Act of 1968, reversing the Fifth Circuit and remanding for further proceedings; the Court also noted that the rule of lenity and constitutional…
Justice Jackson, writing for eight Justices, held that 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) waives sovereign immunity for a trustee’s federal avoidance claim under § 544(b), but not for the underlying state-law claim used to satisfy that provision’s actual-creditor requirement.
Justice Thomas, writing for a seven‑justice majority, held that the knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the use of physical force within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Thomas and joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, held that the knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the "use" of physical force within the meaning of § 924(c)(3)(A)…
The Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, held that 18 U.S.C. §1014 criminalizes only false statements and does not extend to statements that are merely misleading but true.
The Court denied the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, maintaining its discretionary approach to exercising original jurisdiction in disputes between states. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissented, arguing that the Constitution and Congress grant the Court exclusive original jurisdiction and…
The Court, in a per curiam opinion, denied the Department of State's application to vacate the district court's enforcement order, thereby leaving the order in place. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, dissented, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that sovereign…
The Supreme Court held that the Veterans Court must review the VA’s benefit‑of‑the‑doubt rule using the same standards in §7261(a)—legal issues de novo and factual issues for clear error—and that the VA’s determination that evidence is in approximate balance is a predominantly factual finding subject to clear‑error…
The Supreme Court held that the Veterans Court must apply the same standards of review set out in §7261(a) when evaluating the VA's benefit‑of‑the‑doubt rule, and that the VA's determination that evidence is in approximate balance is a predominantly factual finding subject only to clear‑error review.
The Court, in a per curiam opinion, denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the Court should grant certiorari to resolve a split among Circuits on whether bias‑response team policies objectively chill student speech and thus confer Article III standing.
The Court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a) is a final proceeding within the meaning of Rule 60(b), allowing a district court to reopen the case when Rule 60(b)'s requirements are satisfied.
The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Kagan and joined by all nine justices, held that under Lanham Act §1117(a) a court may award only the profits attributable to the named corporate defendant, not the profits of its affiliates.
The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Kagan, held that under the Lanham Act a plaintiff may recover only the defendant's own profits, not the profits of its affiliates, and vacated the Fourth Circuit's award that treated the corporate group as a single entity.
The Court held that drivers who obtained only a preliminary injunction, and whose case became moot before a final judgment, are not "prevailing parties" eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C.
The Supreme Court held that drivers who obtained only a preliminary injunction before the case became moot are not "prevailing parties" eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
The Court denied the petitions for writs of certiorari. Justice Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the Fifth Circuit’s allowance of judge‑found restitution without a jury conflicts with the Sixth Amendment and that the Court should have granted review.
Justice Sotomayor denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, concurring that the California Supreme Court should first address whether the state's approach to dismissals under Penal Code §1385(a) as acquittals complies with the Double Jeopardy Clause, and urging the state court to reconcile its Hatch rule with…
The Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, issuing a per curiam order. Justice Thomas filed a dissent, joined by no other justice, arguing that the Court should have used this opportunity to overrule Hill v. Colorado, which he contends is no longer good law.
Justice Alito dissented from the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the lower courts erred by relying on post‑event precedent to satisfy the clearly established law requirement for qualified immunity. He would have granted summary reversal of the judgment against Officer Pina.
The Court held that E‑Rate reimbursement requests are "claims" under the False Claims Act because the Government provided a portion of the money by depositing over $100 million from the Treasury into the Universal Service Fund, allowing the qui tam suit to proceed.
The Supreme Court held that E‑Rate reimbursement requests are “claims” under the False Claims Act because the Government provided a portion of the money by depositing more than $100 million from the Treasury into the Universal Service Fund, and affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s judgment, remanding for further proceedings.
The Court, in a per curiam opinion, held the Government's application to vacate the district court's temporary restraining order is held in abeyance until the order expires on February 26, effectively declining to grant immediate relief. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson indicated they would deny the application.
The Court, in a per curiam opinion, denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, filed a dissent arguing that the Sixth Circuit's application of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was erroneous and that the Court should have granted certiorari and summarily…
The Court per curiam granted the stay of the district court's universal injunction. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the grant and urging the Court to resolve the universal injunction question now.
The Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Kagan, held that when a plaintiff amends a removed complaint to eliminate all federal‑question claims, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state‑law claims and must remand the case to state court.