A case in which the Court held that a bankruptcy debtor can be held liable for another person’s fraud, even when they were not aware of the fraud.

A case in which the Court held the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that a state rule of criminal procedure precluded post-conviction relief is not an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment against him.

A case in which the Court held the one-year filing deadline for veterans to submit disability claims after they are discharged is not subject to principles of equitable tolling, meaning that missing the filing deadline forfeits retroactive disability benefits.

A case in which the Court vacated the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirming the drunk-driving convictions of petitioner Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious, and remanded the case.

A case in which the Court held that the Secretary of Commerce did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district court was warranted in remanding the case to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision.

A case in which the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.

A case in which the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.

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 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 vacated the Tenth Circuit’s decision holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), which imposes a mandatory minimum punishment on a criminal defendant upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant engaged in certain criminal conduct while under supervised release, violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.