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.

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.

A case in which the Court decided that the district court erred in disregarding the presumption of good faith on the part of the Texas Legislature and improperly reversed the burden of proof in requiring the state to show a lack of discriminatory intent in adopting new districting plans; the Court also held that one of the state house districts at issue was an impermissible racial gerrymander.

A case in which the Court held, under the “rule of reason,” that the government’s showing that American Express’s anti-steering provisions stifled price competition on the merchant side of the credit-card platform was not sufficient to prove a violation of antitrust law.

A case in which the Court held, under the “rule of reason,” that the government’s showing that American Express’s anti-steering provisions stifled price competition on the merchant side of the credit-card platform was not sufficient to prove a violation of antitrust law.

A case in which the Court held that the warrantless seizure and search of cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days violates the Fourth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that it has jurisdiction to review the CAAF's decisions and that Judge Martin T. Mitchell’s simultaneous service on the US Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) and the US Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) does not violate the Appointments Clause or 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A).

A case in which the Court decided that because Michael Currier consented to a severance of the multiple charges against him, his second trial and resulting conviction, following an acquittal at his first trial, did not violate the double jeopardy clause.

A case in which the Court held that WesternGeco’s award for lost profits was a permissible domestic application of § 284 of the Patent Act.