| Case name |
Docket no. |
Date decided |
|---|
| Allen v. Milligan |
21–1086 |
June 8, 2023 |
| Plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that Alabama's redistricting plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. |
| Dubin v. United States |
22–10 |
June 8, 2023 |
| Under §1028A(a)(1), a defendant “uses” another person’s means of identification “in relation to” a predicate offense when the use is at the crux of what makes the conduct criminal. |
| Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC |
22–148 |
June 8, 2023 |
| When an alleged infringer uses a trademark as a designation of source for the infringer's own goods, the Rogers test does not apply. |
| Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski |
21–806 |
June 8, 2023 |
| The provisions of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act at issue unambiguously create rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983, and private enforcement under §1983 is compatible with the FNHRA’s remedial scheme. A plaintiff can file a federal civil rights claim because of violation of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act. |
| Smith v. United States |
21–1576 |
June 15, 2023 |
| The Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district. |
| Haaland v. Brackeen |
21–376 |
June 15, 2023 |
| 1. The Court declines to disturb the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that ICWA is consistent with Congress’s Article I authority.
2. Petitioners’ anticommandeering challenges, which address three categories of ICWA provisions, are rejected.
3. The Court does not reach the merits of petitioners’ two additional claims—an equal protection challenge to ICWA’s placement preferences and a nondelegation challenge to §1915(c), the provision allowing tribes to alter the placement preferences—because no party before the Court has standing to raise them. |
| Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin |
22–227 |
June 15, 2023 |
| Native American Nations are not immune from the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code |
| United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. |
21–1052 |
June 16, 2023 |
| In a qui tam action filed under the False Claims Act, the United States may move to dismiss whenever it has intervened — whether during the seal period or later on. |
| Lora v. United States |
22–49 |
June 16, 2023 |
| Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar on concurrent sentences does not govern a sentence for a §924(j) conviction. A §924(j) sentence therefore can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence. |
| Jones v. Hendrix |
21–857 |
June 22, 2023 |
| Section 2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (AEDPA) restrictions on second or successive §2255 motions by filing a §2241 habeas petition |
| Yegiazaryan v. Smagin |
22–381 |
June 22, 2023 |
| A plaintiff alleges a domestic injury for purposes of §1964(c) when the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States. |
| Pugin v. Garland |
22–23 |
June 22, 2023 |
| An offense may "relate to" obstruction of justice under the Immigration and Nationality Act even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending. |
| Arizona v. Navajo Nation |
21–1484 |
June 22, 2023 |
| The 1868 treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation but did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe. |
| Samia v. United States |
22–196 |
June 23, 2023 |
| The Confrontation Clause was not violated by the admission of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that did not directly inculpate the defendant and was subject to a proper limiting instruction. |
| United States v. Texas |
22–58 |
June 23, 2023 |
| Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines. |
| Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski |
22–105 |
June 23, 2023 |
| A federal district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing. |
| United States v. Hansen |
22–179 |
June 23, 2023 |
| Because §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law, the clause is not unconstitutionally overbroad. |