The case Bouarfa v. Mayorkas. The central issue is whether the revocation of an immigration petition, following a determination of sham marriage, is subject to judicial review. The petitioner argues that the revocation is mandatory and thus reviewable, citing statutory language and the government’s consistent practice. The respondent, the government, contends that the statute grants discretionary authority to revoke, precluding review, regardless of established practice. The justices explore the interplay of different statutory provisions and the implications for various immigration contexts. Disagreement centers on whether the statutory language regarding initial petition approval extends to subsequent revocations.

The case of Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn. The central question is whether economic losses stemming from personal injuries are recoverable under RICO. The petitioner argues that RICO excludes such claims, emphasizing the distinction between "injury" (invasion of a legal right) and "damages" (monetary losses resulting from injury). The respondent counters that loss of income due to a job loss resulting from a product defect constitutes an "injury to business or property" under RICO, regardless of any underlying personal injury. The justices extensively question both sides, exploring the definitions of "injury," "damages," and "proximate cause" within the context of RICO and related statutes. Ultimately, the Court must determine the proper scope of RICO's application to cases involving both personal and economic harm.

The case of Glossip v. State of Oklahoma, focusing on whether the state court's denial of the petitioner's request to waive procedural bars to his habeas corpus claim constitutes an adequate and independent state ground for review. The central issue revolves around alleged Brady and Napue violations, specifically the prosecution's suppression of evidence regarding a key witness's psychiatric treatment and altered testimony. The justices extensively discuss the state court's reasoning and whether its decision was adequately supported, considering the conflicting accounts of the prosecutors involved. Debate centers on the materiality of the suppressed evidence and whether its disclosure would likely have changed the trial's outcome. Finally, the court considers whether the Attorney General's confession of error necessitates a new trial.

The case of Lackey v. Stinnie, heard on October 8, 2024. The central question concerns whether a preliminary injunction constitutes a "prevailing party" status under Section 1988, allowing for attorney's fee awards. The petitioner argues that a preliminary injunction, being a temporary measure not deciding the case's merits, does not qualify. The respondent counters that obtaining the preliminary injunction's tangible relief and subsequent legislative action constitute prevailing. The justices extensively debate the meaning of "prevailing party" and the implications of granting fees based solely on a preliminary injunction.

The case Garland v. VanDerStok, concerning the legality of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule regulating firearm parts kits and partially complete receivers. The Solicitor General argued the rule is consistent with existing law and addresses a serious public safety issue, while the respondents contended the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by expanding the definition of "firearm." The justices questioned both sides extensively on the definitions of key terms within the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the appropriate standard of review for the rule. The core dispute centers on whether the ATF's interpretation of "readily convertible" is a permissible expansion of the law or an impermissible overreach.

The case Royal Canin v. Wullschleger. The core issue revolves around whether a federal court retains supplemental jurisdiction after a plaintiff amends their complaint to remove all federal claims, particularly in cases initially brought in state court and then removed. Petitioners argue established precedent and Section 1367 support retaining jurisdiction, emphasizing the defendant's right to removal. Respondents contend the amended complaint should control, aligning with a principle that the operative pleading determines jurisdiction. The justices' questions explore the nuances of Section 1367, precedent (including Cohill and Rockwell), and the implications for various jurisdictional doctrines.

The case Williams v. Fitzgerald. The central issue is whether an Alabama state law requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before bringing a §1983 due process claim is preempted by federal law. The petitioner argues that the state's exhaustion requirement creates an insurmountable barrier to accessing federal courts, effectively granting the state immunity. The respondent contends that the state law is a neutral rule of judicial administration and does not conflict with §1983. The justices extensively questioned both sides regarding the nature of the state rule, the availability of alternative remedies, and the implications for preemption doctrine.