A case in which the Court held that a state’s regulation of liquor sales by granting licenses only to individuals or entities that have resided in-state for a specified time violates the dormant Commerce Clause and is not saved by the Twenty-First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, are not overruled.

A case in which the Court held that punitive damages are not available to a Jones Act seaman in a personal injury lawsuit alleging a breach of the general maritime duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.

A case in which the Court held that where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).

A case in which the Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks, in Section 2(a), violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the subsection-specific definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)—which applies only in the limited context of a federal criminal prosecution for possessing, using or carrying a firearm in connection with acts comprising such a crime—is unconstitutionally vague.

A case in which the Court held that a government violates the Takings Clause when it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may bring a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at that time; the state-litigation requirement set forth in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), is overruled.

A case in which the Court held that the presence of in-state beneficiaries alone does not empower a state to tax trust income that has not been distributed to the beneficiaries where the beneficiaries have no right to demand that income and are uncertain to receive it.

A case in which the Court held that the trial court in this case committed clear error at Flowers’ sixth murder trial by concluding that the state’s peremptory strike of a particular black prospective juror was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent.

A case in which the Court held that the “knowingly” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime.