A case in which the Court decided that the New York General Business Law’s was not unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A case in which the Court determined that the use of outdated medical standards regarding intellectual disability to determine whether a person is exempt from execution violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment as well as earlier precedent.

A case in which the Court determined that bankruptcy court cannot authorize a distribution of settlement proceeds in a manner that does not comply with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority distribution scheme.

A case in which the Court determined that, in order to provide children with disabilities a free and appropriate public education as guaranteed by the IDEA, school districts must offer children an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that is reasonably calculated to enable each child to make progress appropriate for that child’s circumstances.

A case in which the Court determined that the test for deciding whether a feature of a “useful article” is copyrightable under the Copyright Act is whether the feature can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional artwork that is separable from the useful article and if it would be a protectable pictorial, graphical, or sculptural work on its own.

A case in which the Court held that an individual’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure continues throughout the legal process of a criminal case.

A case in which the Court determined that the limitations on nominees to vacant positions serving in an acting capacity under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act apply equally to first assistants who take on the position and to those who are selected by the President from within the same agency or from another agency.

A case in which the Court determined that an unreasonable delay in litigation cannot bar claims for patent infringement that are brought within the six-year statutory period of limitations.

A case in which the Court held that the no-impeachment rule may not bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.

A case in which the Court held that its holding in Johnson v. US regarding the unconstitutionality of the residual clause in the Armed Criminal Career Act does not apply retroactively to identical language in the Sentencing Guidelines.