23-7809 - Gutierrez v. Saenz - Opinion Announcement - June 26, 2025

A case in which the Court held that a Texas law that requires any website that publishes content one-third or more of which is “harmful to minors” to verify the age of each of its users before providing access is subject to “intermediate scrutiny,” and the law at issue is constitutional under that test.

A case in which the Court held that the 30-day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement, and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief in a withholding-only proceeding is not a “final order of removal” for purposes of triggering this deadline.

A case in which the Court held that the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision does not unambiguously confer a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider and therefore cannot be enforced via § 1983.

A case in which the Court held that a Texas death-row inmate has standing to sue the state over its refusal to give him access to DNA testing.

A case in which the Court held that the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act’s enactment, then vacated and resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the Act’s enactment.

A case in which the Court held that the Tobacco Control Act’s provision that “any person adversely affected” by the FDA’s denial of a marketing application may seek judicial review extends to retailers who would sell the new tobacco product, not just the manufacturers who applied for approval.

A case in which the Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not permit a former employee—who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed—to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits.

A case in which the Court held that the Hobbs Act does not preclude judicial review of an agency's statutory interpretation in district court enforcement proceedings, and district courts must independently determine whether the agency's interpretation is correct under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation.

A case in which the Court held that the personal jurisdiction provision of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.