A case in which the Court decided that upon denial of class certification, a putative class member may not, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing a individual action, commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations.

A case in which the Court decided that the retroactive application of Minnesota’s revocation-upon-divorce statute, which automatically nullifies the designation of an ex-spouse as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy or other will substitute, does not violate the contracts clause of the Constitution.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide, among other things, whether the state of Washington’s use of culverts to divert water violates its treaties with Indian tribes, and if so, whether the state must replace those culverts, at great cost.

A case in which the Court decided that a statement regarding a specific asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s . . . financial condition” under section 523(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A case in which the Court decided that the petitioners, who were criminal defendants, were not eligible for sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because their sentences were not “based on” their lowered Federal Sentencing Guidelines ranges, but rather were “based on” the mandatory minimum sentences for their offenses and their substantial assistance to the government.

A case in which the Court decided that a sentence imposed pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (“Type C”) plea bargain is “based on” the defendant’s Federal Sentencing Guidelines range as long as that range was a component of the framework the court used in imposing the sentence or accepting the plea bargain, meaning that in this case, Erik Hughes could seek a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

A case in which the Court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's conduct in evaluating a cake shop owner's reasons for declining to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the Free Exercise Clause.

A case in which the Court held that a police officer cannot, under the Fourth Amendment, enter private property in order to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

A case in which the Court was asked to clarify the scope of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a “criminal case”—specifically whether the Fifth Amendment is violated when a criminal defendant is compelled to incriminate himself and the incriminating statement is used in a probable cause hearing.

A case in which the Court held that under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4), which pertains to reimbursement by defendants to victims for expenses incurred during the investigation or prosecution related to the offense, the words “investigation” and “proceedings” encompass only government investigations and criminal proceedings and do not include private investigations and civil or bankruptcy proceedings.