A case in which the Court held that Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies in cases involving seized money and that the plaintiffs must establish a clear trace between expropriated property (or the proceeds from its sale) and property present in the United States in connection with commercial activity.

A case in which the Court held that § 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code abrogates the Government’s sovereign immunity with respect to a §544(b) claim, but that waiver does not extend to state-law claims nested within that federal claim.

A case in which the Court held that the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products was not arbitrary and capricious.

A case in which the Court will clarify the pleading standards to show knowledge or intent for Private Securities Litigation Reform Act claims that rely on internal company documents.

A case in which the Court held that a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

A case in which the Court held that when a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, a motion to reopen filed the next business day is sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm.

A case in which the Court held that employers seeking to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption must do so by a preponderance of the evidence.

A case in which the Court held that the phrase “entitled…to benefits” includes only those people who are eligible to receive a cash payment during the month of their hospitalization.