A case in which the Court held that a party is not liable for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) unless the party has also violated Section 217(a)o or any other statutory provision.

A case in which the Court found that the San Diego Police Department's search of an arrested gang member's cell phone pictures without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

A case in which the Court found that the San Diego Police Department's search of an arrested gang member's cell phone pictures without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that a public employee's truthful testimony under subpoena in a trial is citizen speech and thus cannot be used to terminate the employee.

A case in which the Court held that, although a U.S. patent may be vague in certain areas, it is still protected by patent law as long as the patent is definite enough for the general public to know what has or has not been patented already.

A case in which the Court held that an allegation of improper purpose was not sufficient to entitle a taxpayer to examine IRS officials.

A case in which the Court found that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act pre-empts statutes of limitations, but cannot be used to pre-empt statutes of repose.

A case in which the Court held that Aereo, Inc. violated federal copyright law by allowing users to stream content produced by major cable companies without a cable subscription.

A case in which the Court held that pre-enforcement challenges are justiciable when evidence indicates that threatened enforcement of the law is sufficiently imminent.

A case in which the Court held that it is the duty of the court system to harmonize statutes, and that barring one applicable statute by use of another represents a disregard of the law's intent of having cooperative statutes.

A case in which the Court held that, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, property held within the US by foreign nations cannot be attached to civil claims unless certain exceptions are met.

A case in which the Court held that a trustee of an employee stock ownership plan is subject to the same duty of prudence as the trustee of a Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

A case in which the Court held that, to find someone guilty of bank fraud, only one of the two bank fraud statutes must be met, not both.

A case in which the Court found that patent laws should not place restraints on abstract ideas that form the "building blocks of human ingenuity."

A case in which the Court held that Secret Service agents did not break any "clearly established" laws in their efforts to protect the President, and were thus protected by qualified immunity.

A case in which the Court decided that the Affordable Care Act's requirement of for-profit corporations to supply its employees with contraceptives that go against the owners' beliefs is unconstitutional under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

A case in which the Court held that the U.S. Bankruptcy Code does not exempt inherited retirement accounts from a debtor's estate in bankruptcy proceedings.

A case in which the Court held that there is no undue burden in allowing defendants in securities fraud cases from presenting evidence regarding the alleged impact of the misinformation on stock prices.

A case in which the Court held that police using deadly force to prevent a crime endangering the general public are granted qualified immunity.

A case in which the Court held that the execution of intellectually disabled individuals violated the protection against cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed in the Eighth Amendment.

A case in which the Court defined "exceptional" cases as ones that simply stand out from others due to a frivolous nature related to its legal claims.

A case in which the Court held that a district court is the best place to determine whether or not a lawsuit is objectively baseless.

A case in which the Court held that, under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, individuals accused of property crime must pay “an amount equal to...the value of the property,” minus “the value...of any part of the property that is returned" in retribution.

A case in which the Court held that, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is not required to include greenhouse gas emissions every time it mentions air pollution.