A case in which the Court determined that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) does not prevent a creditor from filing a proof of claim on an unpaid debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding even after the statute of limitations on that debt has run.

A case in which the Court determined that the “aggrieved persons” language of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) does not impose a more narrow standing standard than Article III does and allows a city to sue, but the proximate cause standard requires the plaintiffs to show more than the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen the harm.

A case in which the Court determined that the “frivolous or insubstantial” standard is not consistent with the text and purpose of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)

A case in which the Court determined that tribal sovereign immunity is not implicated in a suit against a tribal employee in his individual capacity, and an indemnification provision cannot extend tribal sovereign immunity to conduct that it would not otherwise cover.

A case in which the Court decided that the Colorado Exoneration Act, which requires exonerated persons to “prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that they were ‘actually innocent’” in order to refund their money, does not comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that appellate courts do not have jurisdiction over an appeal of a restitution award when the judgment that awarded restitution was entered after the notice of appeal was filed.

A case in which the court held that, when a federal court sanctions bad-faith conduct by ordering a litigant to pay the other side’s legal fees, the award is limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely due to the misconduct.

A case in which the Court determined that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA) preempts state laws that prohibit insurance companies from claiming the proceeds of personal injury settlements pursuant to their contracts, and the express preemption clause of the FEHBA does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a district court’s decision to enforce an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission subpoena should be reviewed “de novo,” or without deference to the lower court’s determination.

A case in which the Court determined that 18 U.S.C. §924(c) does not prevent a sentencing court from using its discretion to consider the other mandatory minimum sentences a defendant might be facing when calculating an overall appropriate sentence.