A case in which the Court held that Wyoming’s admission to the Union did not abrogate the Crow Tribe of Indians’ 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States,” and the lands of the Bighorn National Forest did not become categorically “occupied” when the forest was created.

A case in which the Court held that in bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor’s rejection of a license agreement has the same effect as breach of that contract outside the bankruptcy context and thus cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.

A case in which the Court held that consumers may sue for antitrust damages any party who delivers goods to them (in this case, Apple), even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties (in this case, app developers) who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.

A case in which the Court held that a state cannot be sued in the courts of another state without its consent, overruling Nevada v. Hall.

A case in which the Court held that a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may rely on the statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene, but the relator does not constitute an “official of the United States” for purposes of that section.

A case in which the Court held that statute that waives the Tennessee Valley Authority’s sovereign immunity from suit by making it a “sue-and-be-sued” type entity is not subject to a discretionary function exception of the kind in the Federal Tort Claims Act but may be subject to an implied restriction as recognized in Federal Housing Authority v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 (1940).

A case in which the Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held, in contrast to the holdings of five other federal appellate courts, that Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 supports an inferred private right of action based on the negligent misstatement or omission made in connection with a tender offer.

A case in which the Court clarified the evidentiary burden for a death-row prisoner seeking an alternative method of execution and held that the prisoner in this case failed to meet that burden.

A case in which the Court held that a vocational expert’s testimony may constitute “substantial evidence” of “other work” even if the expert does not provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.