A case in which the Court determined that a state offense may constitute an aggravated felony for the purpose of the removal of a permanent resident when it includes all the elements of the federal statute with the exception of the interstate commerce element.

A case in which the Court determined that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial does not extend past a guilty verdict or guilty plea.

A case in which the Court determined that a defendant may be a “prevailing party” for the purpose of the award of fees even without a ruling on the merits.

A case in which the Court held that lower courts need to consider the elements of Article III standing analysis separately in determining whether standing is sufficient for a federal court to hear the case.

A case in which the Court determined that the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 creates the same test for establishing federal jurisdiction as the general test for whether a federal court has jurisdiction: Whether the case “arises under” federal law.

A case in which the Court determined that insurance companies could potentially provide contraceptive coverage to employees of organizations that object to such coverage on religious grounds without the organizations needing to provide notification.

A case in which the Court determined that the “actual fraud” language of the bankruptcy statute encompasses traditional forms of fraud and is not limited to fraudulent representation.

A case in which the Court held that, regardless of whether special counsel appointed by the Attorney General to collect debts are “state officers” under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, the use of Attorney General letterhead by such special counsel is not materially misleading.

A case in which the Court determined that a conspiracy to commit extortion can involve the purported victims of the extortion as members of the conspiracy.

A case in which the Court determined that a government employee who is demoted because of perceived involvement in protected political activity is entitled to challenge his demotion under the First Amendment, even if the demotion was based on a factual mistake.