A case in which the Court determined that the use of an uncounseled conviction in tribal court proceedings that complied with the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (ICRA) as a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. 117(a) did not violate the Sixth Amendment.

A case in which the Court determined that a federal district court judge has some ability to recall jurors in a civil case after identifying an error in their verdict, subject to certain limitations to ensure the jurors were not prejudiced.

A case in which the Court held that Puerto Rico and the U.S. federal government are the same sovereign entity for the purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

A case in which the Court determined that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments are violated when a judge who was previously involved in the case as a prosecutor declines to recuse himself, regardless of whether that judge’s decision as part of a multi-member tribunal was dispositive.

A case in which the Court determined that the judgment bar of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) does not apply to claims dismissed for falling under the exceptions to the FTCA.

A case in which the Court determined that the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirement to exhaust administrative remedies does not have a “special circumstances” exception.

A case in which the Court determined that the Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdictional determination that a property constituted “water of the United States” was a final agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

A case in which the Court held that the 45-day period in which an employee must file a constructive discharge claim under federal employment discrimination law begins to run on the date the employee resigns.

A case in which the Court determined that members of Congress whose chances of reelection might be impaired by a new districting plan did not have standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to appeal their case to the Supreme Court.

A case in which the Court determined that the new evidence in this case was sufficient to establish that there was purposeful discrimination of the type that Batson v. Kentucky prohibits in the jury selection process of Foster’s trial.