A case in which the Court will determine whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit imposed an unduly burdensome standard on the review of a claim that counsel was ineffective by knowingly calling an expert witness who testified that race was a factor in evaluating future dangerousness.

A case in which the Court will decide if being close family members is enough evidence to convict for insider trading, or if it needs to shown that the defendant directly knew that information would lead to financial gain.

A case in which the Court will determine whether, to convict a defendant of defrauding a financial institution under the Bank Fraud Act of 1984, the government must prove not only that the defendant had an intent to deceive, but also that the target of that deception was a bank.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Double Jeopardy Clause, a vacated, unconstitutional conviction can prevent an acquittal from barring further prosecution on issues already decided in the defendant’s favor by the earlier acquittal.

A case in which the Court held that, for the purpose of federal bribery statutes, an “official act” is a decision or action on a question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy that involves a specific exercise of formal governmental power.

A case in which the Court determined that a federal district court judge has some ability to recall jurors in a civil case after identifying an error in their verdict, subject to certain limitations to ensure the jurors were not prejudiced.

A case in which the Court determined that a state crime cannot qualify as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) if the elements of the state offense are broader than those of a listed generic offense based on an “elements-only inquiry,” not a modified categorical approach.

A case in which the Court determined that, when deciding whether to grant attorney’s fees under Section 505 of the Copyright Act, courts should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s position, but that determination should not be the controlling factor.

A case in which the Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of patent claims during an inter partes review proceeding, and such a proceeding is not judicially reviewable.

A case in which the Court held that, because the Department of Labor did not give adequate reasons for altering its position on whether service advisors are exempt from overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the case should be remanded for reinterpretation that does not give controlling weight to the Department’s 2011 position.