A case in which the Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s “extraordinary circumstances” standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.

A case in which the Court held that a majority-group plaintiff need not prove anything different from a minority-group plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A case in which the Court held that, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.

A case in which the Court a court may not, in considering whether to revoke an individual’s supervised release and impose a prison sentence, consider factors from the law governing sentencing not mentioned in the supervised release law.

A case in which the Court held that a Texas death-row inmate has standing to sue the state over its refusal to give him access to DNA testing.

A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff can state a claim under a provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that bars a plan fiduciary from knowingly engaging in a transaction that is an exchange of goods or services between the plan and anyone barred from doing business with the plan, simply by alleging that such a transaction occurred.

A case in which the Court struck down the Fifth Circuit's “moment of the threat” doctrine, which it applied when evaluating Fourth Amendment excessive force claims.

A case in which the Court held that the Tobacco Control Act’s provision that “any person adversely affected” by the FDA’s denial of a marketing application may seek judicial review extends to retailers who would sell the new tobacco product, not just the manufacturers who applied for approval.

A case in which the Court held that the Hobbs Act does not preclude judicial review of an agency's statutory interpretation in district court enforcement proceedings, and district courts must independently determine whether the agency's interpretation is correct under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation.

A case in which the Court held that a Texas law that requires any website that publishes content one-third or more of which is “harmful to minors” to verify the age of each of its users before providing access is subject to “intermediate scrutiny,” and the law at issue is constitutional under that test.