A case in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions.

A case in which the Court held that a worker need not be employed by a company in the transportation industry to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

A case in which the Court held that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K cannot support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.

A case in which the Court held that an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

A case in which the Court held that respondent’s claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are not moot because the government's declaration stating that he “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information” did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social media account, which the official uses to communicate about job-related matters with the public.

A case in which the Court held that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.

A case in which the Court held that a defendant must satisfy individually each of the three conditions of the “safety valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1) to be eligible for sentencing relief.

A case in which the Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was found by a jury to be not guilty by reason of insanity.

A case in which the Court held that under federal admiralty law, choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions not applicable in this case.