A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff whose state-court lawsuit was removed by the defendants to federal court can seek to have the case sent back to state court by amending the complaint to omit all references to federal law.

A case in which the Court held that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court if enforcing that requirement effectively immunizes officials from suit.

A case in which the Court held that a former U.S. President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act—which requires hospitals receiving Medicare funding to offer “necessary stabilizing treatment” to pregnant women in emergencies—preempts an Idaho law that criminalizes most abortions in the state.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the denial of a visa to the non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen infringes on a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen and, if so, whether the government properly justified that decision.

A case in which the Court held courts must use the traditional four-factor test to evaluate the National Labor Relations Board’s requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

A case in which the Court held that Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, and does not give district courts discretion to dismiss the suit when all claims are subject to arbitration.

A case in which the Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment does not prevent a city from enforcing a ban on public camping against homeless individuals.

A case in which the Court held that when a capital defendant claims that he was prejudiced at sentencing because counsel failed to present available mitigating evidence, a court must decide whether it is reasonably likely that the additional evidence would have avoided a death sentence, which the court does by evaluating the strength of all the evidence and comparing the weight of aggravating and mitigating factors.

A case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, does not include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.