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 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 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 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 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.

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 will held that dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud falls within the scope of Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) even if the disseminator did not “make” the statements as defined by the Court’s precedent.

A case in which the Court resolved a circuit split in holding that plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act must serve the foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) by mail addressed and dispatched to the head of the foreign state's ministry of foreign affairs in the foreign state, not at the foreign state's embassy in the United States.