A case in which the Court held that the federal officer removal statute allows a defendant to move a state-court suit to federal court if the challenged conduct has a plausible and close relationship to the performance of federal duties.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.

A case in which the Court held that Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA) does not give private individuals the power to sue for rescission when they allege a contract violates the Act; that enforcement power belongs to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A case in which the Court held that limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and overruled Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935).

A case in which the Court held that its decision in Heck v. Humphrey does not bar claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking only prospective relief when the plaintiff has previously been punished under the challenged law.

A case in which the Court held that a government subpoena demanding a private organization's donor records inflicts an immediate injury to First Amendment freedom of association rights, allowing the organization to challenge the demand in federal court before it is enforced.

A case in which the Court held that a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute “persecution” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).

A case in which the Court held that an internet service provider does not commit "contributory copyright infringement" — meaning legal responsibility for copyright violations committed by someone else — simply by continuing to provide internet service to subscribers it knows have been flagged for piracy.

A case in which the Court held that a prisoner who wants to challenge the validity of his conviction after sentencing must use the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. §2255—not the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. §3582