A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether the Biden administration’s revised immigration policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

A case in which the Court held that the saving clause in 28 U. S. C. §2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in the interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s restrictions on second or successive § 2255 motions by filing a habeas petition under § 2241.

A case in which the Court held that a foreign plaintiff with no alleged connection to the United States can state a cognizable claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act if the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States.

A case in which the Court held that when an individual brings a lawsuit on behalf of the government alleging fraud on the United States, the government has the power to dismiss the lawsuit whenever it intervenes in the case, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) governs that procedure.

A case in which the Court held that a federal criminal sentencing law gives the court flexibility to decide between consecutive and concurrent sentences for a man who was convicted and sentenced for his role in a drug-trafficking-related murder.

A case in which the Court held that the Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district.

A case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

A case in which the Court held the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress’s intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes.

A case in which the Court held that Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

A case in which the Court held that humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s likelihood-of-confusion analysis.