A case in which the Court will decide whether the denial of a visa to the non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen infringes on a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen and, if so, whether the government properly justified that decision.

A case in which the Court will decide whether to approve a consent decree resolving claims among Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico over the delivery of water from the Rio Grande Basin to Elephant Butte.

A case in which the Court held that the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

A case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power under the 16th Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the probable-cause exception in Nieves v. Barlett can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened; and whether Nieves is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.

A case in which the Court held that in a prosecution for drug trafficking—where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs—Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters.

A case in which the Court held that a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge so long as other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause.

A case in which the Court held that the government provides adequate notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document lacking the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information.

A case in which the Court held that a bump stock device is not a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).

A case in which the Court held that the U.S. Trustee was not required to issue refunds for the extra fees paid by debtors in certain districts to address the lack of uniformity identified in Siegel v. Fitzgerald; prospective parity is the appropriate remedy.