A case in which the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not permit a court to resolve a question of arbitrability when the parties to the contract at issue delegated such questions to an arbitrator.

A case in which the Court resolved a circuit split, holding that fees subject to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)’s 25-percent cap related to the representation of individuals claiming Social Security benefits include only fees for representation in court, not fees for representation before the agency.

A case in which the Court held that residential burglary under Arkansas law and aggravated burglary under Tennessee law are the same as “general burglary” such that convictions for those crimes can serve as predicate crimes for the purpose of the enhanced sentencing provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984.

A case in which the Court held that (1) to be designated a "critical habitat" under the Endangered Species Act, the land must already be habitat for the species; and (2) an agency determination not to exclude an area from critical habitat due to the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

A case in which the Court held that the ADEA applies to all state political subdivisions of any size, resolving a circuit split between the Ninth Circuit and four other circuits.

A case in which the Court decided the State of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977), which held otherwise, was overruled.

A case in which the Court decided the State of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977), which held otherwise, was overruled.

A case in which the Court held that Florida made a legally sufficient showing as to the possibility of fashioning an effective remedial decree equitably apportioning the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF Basin).

A case in which the Court decided that pro-life pregnancy center petitioners were likely to succeed on their claim that the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act violated the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that President Donald Trump’s Proclamation restricting travel and immigration to the US from certain countries (“travel ban”) does not violate the president’s statutory authority or the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Court was also asked, but did not decide, whether a global injunction barring enforcement of parts of the Proclamation is impermissibly overbroad.