Monsanto Company v. Durnell

A case in which the Court held that the TPS statute’s judicial review bar blocks all non-constitutional challenges to the Secretary of Homeland Security's decisions to grant, extend, or terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

A case in which the Court held that a generic drug manufacturer does not actively induce patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) when its communications consist only of legally required labeling, standard industry language, omissions, and vague statements that lack any affirmative purpose of encouraging the patented use.

A case in which the Court held that neither the Alien Tort Statute nor the Torture Victim Protection Act supplies a judicially implied private right of action for aiding-and-abetting liability.

A case in which the Court held that law enforcement’s use of a geofence warrant to obtain location data from a tech company constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, requiring a valid warrant supported by probable cause and particularity, because people retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in detailed records of their physical movements.

A case in which the Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.

A case in which the Court will decide whether execution of a geofence warrant in this case violated the Fourth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require a border officer to possess clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that resident as an applicant for admission rather than someone already admitted to the country.

A case in which the Court held that the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial does not require the FCC to involve a jury when issuing forfeiture orders.

A case in which the Court held that the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.

A case in which the Court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district courts from reviewing and nullifying state-court judgments, applies even when the state-court judgment under attack remains subject to an ongoing appeal in state court.