A case in which the Court decided that a statement regarding a specific asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s . . . financial condition” under section 523(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A case in which the Court overruled Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, holding that states may require sellers with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales tax for goods sold within the state.

A case in which the Court held that WesternGeco’s award for lost profits was a permissible domestic application of § 284 of the Patent Act.

A case in which the Court decided that employee stock options are not taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act because they are not “money remuneration.”

A case in which the Court upheld the federal district court's denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction by several Republican voters who alleged partisan gerrymandering in Maryland.

A case in which the Court decided that the petitioners, who were criminal defendants, were not eligible for sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because their sentences were not “based on” their lowered Federal Sentencing Guidelines ranges, but rather were “based on” the mandatory minimum sentences for their offenses and their substantial assistance to the government.

A case in which the Court decided that a sentence imposed pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (“Type C”) plea bargain is “based on” the defendant’s Federal Sentencing Guidelines range as long as that range was a component of the framework the court used in imposing the sentence or accepting the plea bargain, meaning that in this case, Erik Hughes could seek a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

A case in which the Court held that challenges to the federal district-wide policy of using of pretrial physical restraints are moot.

A case in which the Court decided that upon denial of class certification, a putative class member may not, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing a individual action, commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations.

A case in which the Court held that its prior decision in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation addressed only a question of statutory interpretation, not the question whether Indian tribes have sovereign immunity in in rem lawsuits.