A case in which the Court determined that race can be shown to be the predominant factor in redistricting even when traditional principles are respected, and that district courts must engage in a holistic analysis.

A case in which the Court held that supplying a single component of a multi-component invention from the United States for sale abroad does not expose the manufacturer to liability for infringement based on worldwide sales.

A case in which the Court determined that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s requirement that plaintiffs exhaust administrative remedies before suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act only applies to individuals seeking relief for the denial of a free and appropriate public education.

A case in which the Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied an unduly burdensome standard of review on a Certificate of Appealability (COA) for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when it denied the COA for failing to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances.

A case in which the Court determined that language in the federal charter of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) that authorizes the organization to sue and be sued does not mean that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over any case in which Fannie Mae is a plaintiff or defendant, and the Supreme Court’s precedent in American National Red Cross v. S.G. doe not require a different result.

A case in which the Court determined that, to convict a defendant of defrauding a financial institution under the Bank Fraud Act of 1984, the government does not need to prove that the target of the deception was a bank.

A case in which the Court determined that, for the purpose of calculating damages in a patent infringement action, the infringing “article of manufacture” may be defined as either an end product sold to a consumer or as a component of that product.

A case in which the Court determined that a violation of the False Claims Act’s seal requirement does not mandate dismissal of the complaint.

A case in which the Court held that evidence of a close family relationship sufficient is to sustain a conviction for insider trading.

A case in which the Court decided that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial when a jury returns an inconsistent verdict of conviction and acquittal and the convictions are later vacated for a completely separate legal error.