22-7466 - Glossip v. Oklahoma - Opinion Announcement - February 25, 2025

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 phrase “entitled…to benefits” includes only those people who are eligible to receive a cash payment during the month of their hospitalization.

A case in which the Court held that under the civil provision of RICO, a plaintiff may seek treble damages for business or property loss even if the loss resulted from a personal injury.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has the authority to regulate so-called “ghost guns”—that is, firearms without serial numbers that can be assembled from parts.

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 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 the Department of Veterans Affairs’ determination that evidence regarding a disability claim is in “approximate balance” is a factual determination subject to clear-error review by the Veterans Court.

A case in which the Court held that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include “end-result” provisions in wastewater discharge permits.

A capital case in which the Court held that the prosecution’s failure to correct false testimony violated the Due Process Clause and remanded the case for a new trial.

A case in which the Court held that a party who obtains a preliminary injunction is not a “prevailing party” for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.