A case in which the Court held that a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service is entitled to receive all of the education benefits at once from programs associated with both periods of service.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress directly under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action, but it concluded that it did not need to resolve that question to dispose of this case.

A case in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions.

A case in which the Court held that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K cannot support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.

A case in which the Court held that a worker need not be employed by a company in the transportation industry to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

A case in which the Court held that an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

A case in which the Court held that respondent’s claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are not moot because the government's declaration stating that he “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information” did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social media account, which the official uses to communicate about job-related matters with the public.

A case in which the Court held that a defendant must satisfy individually each of the three conditions of the “safety valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1) to be eligible for sentencing relief.

A case in which the Court held that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.