A case in which the Court held that Michigan’s third-degree home-invasion statute substantially corresponds to or is narrower than generic burglary for purposes of qualifying for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

A case in which the Court held that a creditor may be held in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy court’s discharge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.

A case in which the Court held that the Secretary of Commerce did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the district court was warranted in remanding the case to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision.

A case in which the Court held that the “knowingly” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime.

A case in which the Court vacated the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirming the drunk-driving convictions of petitioner Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious, and remanded the case.

A case in which the Court held that Title VII’s administrative-exhaustion requirement is a waivable claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.

A case in which the Court held that where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).

A case in which the Court held that the subsection-specific definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)—which applies only in the limited context of a federal criminal prosecution for possessing, using or carrying a firearm in connection with acts comprising such a crime—is unconstitutionally vague.

A case in which the Court held that the statute of limitations for the petitioner’s § 1983 fabricated evidence claim began to run when the criminal proceedings against him terminated in his favor—that is, when he was acquitted at the end of his second trial.

A case in which the Court held that the presence of in-state beneficiaries alone does not empower a state to tax trust income that has not been distributed to the beneficiaries where the beneficiaries have no right to demand that income and are uncertain to receive it.