A case in which the Court determined that the law of the case doctrine does not require that the sufficiency of evidence be measured against the elements laid out in the jury instructions when those elements require the government to prove more than the statute requires and the government did not object at trial. The Court also determined that a statute of limitations defense that is not raised at trial is not reviewable on appeal.

A case in which the Court decided that the Eighth Amendment does not require that a jury be instructed that mitigating circumstances do not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor does it require that the sentencing phase of a joint trial be severed.

A case in which the Court held that an unaccepted settlement offer does not make a plaintiff’s claim moot, and a federal contractor does not have derivative sovereign liability from a suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

A case in which the Court determined that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not allow for a suit to recover reimbursement of an asset that has been fully disbursed on non-traceable items such as services.

A case in which the Court will determine whether habeas relief can be awarded in the absence of clearly established precedent that the inference of motive at trial violates the defendant’s right to due process.

A case in which the Court will determine whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act caps the monthly payment to cover a prisoner’s filing fees at 20% of the prisoner’s monthly income regardless of the number of pending cases the prisoner has in federal courts.

A case in which the Court held that Florida’s sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, which held that the Sixth Amendment required a jury to sentence the defendant to death.

A case in which the Court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state law and required the enforcement of a contract’s arbitration agreement.

A case in which the Court held that a claim covered by the Three-Judge Court Act must be heard by a three-judge panel.

A case in which the Court held that the commercial activity exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act only applies when the suit is based upon activity that took place in the United States, and it was not sufficient to establish a single element of the claim in question.