A case in which the Court found that taking a DNA sample from people who are arrested, but not yet convicted, of a serious crime is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

A case in which the Court found that using the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines at the time of the sentencing for a crime rather than at the time of the offense is a violation of the ex post facto clause.

A case in which the Court found that procedural default will not bar a federal court from hearing a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

A case in which the Court held that proving actual innocence allows a petitioner to pursue habeas corpus relief regardless of a statute of limitations.

A case in which the Court found that under the Privileges and Immunities clause and the Dormant Commerce clause, a state can deny access to its public records to citizens of another state.

A case in which the Court held that courts should use a common-sense, substance-based approach instead of a formalistic approach when considering the effect of a foreign tax.

A case in which the Court held that even after its authorized purchase, the reproduction and reuse of a seed violated the patent of the seed.

A case in which the Court held that claims against the United States for the intentional torts of prison officials is not limited to violations made during searches, seizures, or arrests.

A case in which the Court found that the courts must apply the Chevron doctrine and defer to an agency's interpretation of its jurisdiction when that jurisdiction is called into question.

A case in which the Court found that even though federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent law cases, state courts can still hear cases related to patent law as long as that it is not the primary issue.

A case in which the Court held that the Gonzalez Act made an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act by saying that a claim of the intentional tort of battery may be brought against an armed forces physician.

A case in which the Court held that the government may not conditionally approve land-use permits unless the conditions are connected and approximately proportionate to the effects of the proposed land use.

A case in which the Court was undecided on whether a state's failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years should be weighed against the state in violation of the right to a speedy trial.

A case in which the Court found that a defendant cannot be found guilty of a claim not included in the indictment.

A case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects against the warrantless taking of a blood sample under exigent circumstances.

A case in which the Court found that lawyers may use personal information protected by the Driver's Privacy Protection Act to find potential plaintiffs for a group action.

A case in which the Court held that federal law preempts North Carolina's state law regarding reimbursement of medical expenses from a patient's settlement.

A case in which the Court held that a five-year statute of limitations period begins at the time the violation is committed.

A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff in a class action case cannot stipulate that the potential damages are less than $5 million in order to remove the case from federal jurisdiction.

A case in which the Court held that it was improper to apply the categorical approach in which the courts apply elements of a prior conviction with elements of a generic crime in order to enhance a sentence under the ACCA.

A case in which the Court decided that the return of a child to his or her country of residence pursuant to The Hague Convention, does not make an appeal of that order moot.

A case in which the Court found that transferring polluted water from one portion of a waterway to another portion of the same waterway did not constitute pollution under the Clean Water Act.

A case in which the Court held that the statute of limitations for filing a claim with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board may be extended up to 3 years.

A case in which the Court found that based on the Clean Water Act, a permit is not necessary for storm water runoff because it is not associated with industrial activity.

A case in which the Court held that a collective action suit on behalf of other "similarly situated" employees becomes moot when the individual claim does.