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 the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) does not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.

A case in which the Court was asked to resolve a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.

A case in which the Court held courts must use the traditional four-factor test to evaluate the National Labor Relations Board’s requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

A case in which the Court held that an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” that may object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

A case in which the Court held that a corporation’s contractual obligation to redeem shares is not necessarily a liability that reduces a corporation’s value for purposes of the federal estate tax.

A case in which the Court held that the Indian Health Service must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties.

A case in which the Court clarified the test for whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state laws to national banks.

A case in which the Court permitted the National Rifle Association's lawsuit to proceed where it plausibly alleged that the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) violated the First Amendment by coercing regulated entities to terminate their business relationships with the NRA in order to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy.

A case in which the Court held that when a capital defendant claims that he was prejudiced at sentencing because counsel failed to present available mitigating evidence, a court must decide whether it is reasonably likely that the additional evidence would have avoided a death sentence, which the court does by evaluating the strength of all the evidence and comparing the weight of aggravating and mitigating factors.