A case in which the Court determined that the regulations at issue unconstitutionally imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions because they created a substantial burden and did not actually serve the stated government interest.

A case in which the Court held that a reckless domestic violence assault qualifies as misdemeanor crime of domestic violence for the purpose of prohibiting firearm possession.

A case in which the Court determined that the regulations at issue unconstitutionally imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions because they created a substantial burden and did not actually serve the stated government interest.

A case in which the Court held that, for the purpose of federal bribery statutes, an “official act” is a decision or action on a question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy that involves a specific exercise of formal governmental power.

A case in which the Court determined that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A case in which the equally divided Court affirmed the lower court, determining a tribal court had jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers.

A case in which the Court determined that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A case in which the Court determined that warrantless blood tests incident to an arrest for drunk driving violate the Fourth Amendment, but warrantless breath tests incident to an arrest for drunk driving do not.

A case in which the Court determined that a state crime cannot qualify as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) if the elements of the state offense are broader than those of a listed generic offense based on an “elements-only inquiry,” not a modified categorical approach.

A case in which the equally divided Court affirmed the lower court's judgment that the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program was arbitrary and capricious, and failed to undergo notice-and-comment procedures as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.