A case in which the Court determined that Ake v. Oklahoma clearly established that a state must provide an indigent defendant with access to an expert witness who is sufficiently available to the defense and independent of the prosecution to effectively conduct an examination and assist in the preparation of a defense.

A case in which the Court determined that, in suits against government officials for personally violating the Constitution, “context” should be defined narrowly for the purpose of determining whether a claim arose in a “new context,” and the government officials in this case are entitled to qualified immunity.

A case in which the Court determined that, when the plaintiffs’ claims would have been exactly the same even if the defendant had no forum state contacts, there is no basis for specific jurisdiction because the case does not sufficiently arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum activities.

A case in which the Court held that statutory distinction between the physical presence requirements for transferral of derivative citizenship for unwed citizen mothers and unwed citizen fathers of foreign-born children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and it is up to Congress, rather than the courts, to create a uniform solution that does not disadvantage any person on the basis of gender.

A case in which the Court determined that the federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.

A case in which the Court determined that a party that purchases a debt and attempts to collect the debt for its own account is not a “debt collector” subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

A case in which the Court determined that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 allows for commercial notice of a “biosimilar product” to be effective if given prior to approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but that the Act’s notice requirement is not enforceable with an injunction.

A case in which the Court determined that the federal forfeiture statute does not require joint and several liability among co-conspirators for any reasonably foreseeable proceeds of conspiracy.

A case in which the Court determined that the “church plan” exemption of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) applies to plans that are maintained by a qualifying church-affiliated organization, even if that organization did not originally establish the plan.

A case in which the Court held that Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disgorgement functions as a penalty, and therefore is subject to the five-year statute of limitations.Commission seeking “disgorgement,” or payment, of illegally obtained funds.