Case Info: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | Case No. 23-1122 | Date Argued: 1/15/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit applied rational-basis review-rather than strict scrutiny-to vacate a preliminary injunction of a provision of a Texas law that significantly burdens adults' access to protected speech, because the law's stated purpose is to protect minors.

Question Presented: Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners: Derek L. Shaffer, Washington, D. C.
• For United States, as amicus curiae: Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
• For respondent: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.

Case Info: Thompson v. United States | Case No. 23-1095 | Date Argued: 1/14/25 | Date Decided: 3/21/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a "false statement" for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.

Holding: 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits “knowingly mak[ing] any false state­ment,” does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justices Alito and Jackson each filed concurring opinions.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Chris C. Gair, Chicago, Ill.
• For respondent: Caroline A. Flynn, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services | Case No. 23-971 | Date Argued: 1/14/25 | Date Decided: 2/26/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) empowers district courts, on just terms and under circumstances specified in that Rule, to "relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding."

Question Presented: Whether a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a "final judgment, order, or proceeding" under Rule 60(b).

Holding: A case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a) counts as a “final proceeding” under Rule 60(b).

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. No justice filed a concurring or dissenting opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Vincent Levy, New York, N. Y.
• For respondent: Matthew D. McGill, Washington, D. C.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Case Info: Stanley v. City of Sanford | Case No. 23-997 | Date Argued: 1/13/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee-who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed-lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Deepak Gupta, Washington, D. C.; and Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
• For respondent: Jessica C. Conner, Orlando, Fla.

Case Info: Hewitt v. United States | Case No. 23-1002 | Date Argued: 1/13/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The First Step Act (FSA) significantly reduced the mandatory minimum sentences for several federal drug and firearm offenses. First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115- 391, §§ 401, 403, 132 Stat. 5194, 5220-5222. Sections 401 and 403 apply to offenses committed after the FSA's enactment on December 21, 2018, and to "any offense that was committed before the date of enactment * * * if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment." FSA§§ 401(c), 403(b).

There is an acknowledged split between the Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, on the one hand; and the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, on the other hand, on the question whether sections 401(c) and 403(b) apply when a pre-enactment sentence is vacated and the court must impose a new post-enactment sentence.

Question Presented: Whether the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the FSA's enactment when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the FSA's enactment.

Host Note: Consolidated with: Duffey V. United States, Case No. 23-1007

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners: Michael B. Kimberly, Washington, D. C.
• For respondent in support of petitioners: Masha G. Hansford, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
• For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D. C.

Case Info: TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | Case No. 24-656 | Date Argued: 1/10/25 | Date Decided: 1/17/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to Petitioners, violates the First Amendment.

Holding: The challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: The Supreme Court wrote a Per Curiam unanimous opinion. Justice Sotomayor wrote an opinion that concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch wrote an opinion that concurred in the judgment.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners TikTok Inc., et al.: Noel J. Francisco, Washington, D. C.
• For petitioners Firebaugh, et al.: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Melo Park, Cal.
• For respondent: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Host Note: Consolidated with: Firebaugh v. Garland, Case No. 24-657.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Case Info: Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. | Case No. 23-900 | Date Argued: 12/11/24 | Date Decided: 2/26/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether an award of the "defendant's profits" under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.

Holding: In awarding the “defendant’s profits” to the prevailing plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act, §1117(a), a court can award only profits ascribable to the “defendant” itself. And the term “defendant” bears its usual legal meaning: the party against whom relief or recovery is sought—here, Dewberry Group. The Engi­neers chose not to add the Group’s affiliates as defendants. Accord­ingly, the affiliates’ profits are not the (statutorily disgorgable) “de­fendant’s profits” as ordinarily understood.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Thomas G. Hungar, Washington, D. C.
• For United States, as amicus curiae: Nicholas S. Crown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
• For respondent: Elbert Lin, Richmond, Va.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Case Info: Bouarfa v. Mayorkas | Date Decided: 12/10/24 | Case No. 23-583

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.

Holding: Revocation of an approved visa petition under § 1155 based on a sham-marriage determination by the Secretary is the kind of discretion­ary decision that falls within the purview of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain actions “in the discretion of ” the agency.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. No justice filed a concurring or dissenting opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Samir Deger-Sen, New York, N. Y.
• For respondents: Colleen R. Sinzdak, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Case Info: Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County | Case No. 23-975 | Date Argued: 12/10/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

In Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 770 (2004), this Court held that when an agency cannot prevent an environmental effect "due to its limited statutory authority over the relevant actions," the National Environmental Policy Act does not require it to study that effect. This holding has divided the courts of appeals. Five circuits read Public Citizen to mean that an agency's environmental review can stop where its regulatory authority stops. Two circuits disagree and require review of any impact that can be called reasonably foreseeable.

Here, the Surface Transportation Board relied on Public Citizen to cabin its environmental review of a new rail line in Utah. But the D.C. Circuit rejected that approach, ruling that the Board "cannot avoid" environmental review "on the ground that it lacks authority to prevent, control, or mitigate" distant environmental effects. As a result, it ordered the Board to study the local effects of oil wells and refineries that lie outside the Board's regulatory authority.

Question Presented: Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.
• For federal respondents supporting petitioners: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
• For respondents Eagle County, et al.: William M. Jay, Washington, D. C.

Case Info: Kousisis v. United States | Case No. 23-909 | Date Argued: 12/9/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Questions Presented:

1. Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme. Whether a sovereign's statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services.
2. Whether all contract rights are "property."

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal.
• For respondent: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.