A case in which the Court held that a felony conviction does not prevent a court from ordering the transfer of lawfully owned firearms to a third party as long as the defendant will neither use them nor direct their use.

A case in which the Court held that a district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit counts as a “strike” for the purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three strikes” provision when the case is pending on appeal.

A case in which the Court held that the lack of a detailed explanation for a denial of a visa application does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

A case in which the Court determined that evidence of disparate impact is sufficient to allege a claim that the defendant violated the Fair Housing Act.

A case in which the Court held that the use of a K-9 unit at the conclusion of an otherwise lawful traffic stop constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that a rule prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds does not violate the First Amendment.

A case that determines whether or not a private right of action exists under the Medicaid Act.

A case in which the Court held that claims that would normally be adjudicated by an Article III court can be adjudicated in a non-Article III court as long as the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent.

The Government must prove the connection between a state drug paraphernalia conviction and a substance listed in the Controlled Substances Act to trigger deportability under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act's statute of limitations tolling provision does not apply to claims of civil fraud brought by private parties. The False Claims Act's "first-to-file bar" keeps new claims out of court only while related claims are still alive, but not in perpetuity.

A case in which the Court held that judicial review of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s efforts at conciliation is appropriate, but such review must be limited to the narrow requirements that Title VII imposes.

A case in which the Court held that the Natural Gas Act does not pre-empt state law claims brought by litigants who purchased gas in retail transactions.

A case in which the Court decided that extra restrictions placed on signs describing the location of nonprofit events do not survive strict scrutiny and are therefore unconstitutional.

A case in which the Court held that the statutes of limitations provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act are subject to equitable tolling.

A case in which the Court ruled that a dismissed claim is immediately appealable if the claim is part of a consolidated action and no final order has been issued concerning all claims in the action.

A case in which the Court held that, in evaluating whether a tax is discriminatory under the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1974, courts may consider competitors an appropriate comparison class and must examine the tax code as a whole rather than solely the challenged provision.

A case in which the Court held that for purposes of the validity of metrics and standards, Amtrak is a governmental entity.

A case in which the Court held that the Tax Injunction Act does not prevent federal court review of state tax laws, unless such review could restrict the ability of the state to assess or collect its own taxes.

A case in which the Court held that "trademark tacking" is a mixed question of fact and law to be decided by the jury.

A case in which the Court held that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires courts to consider whether an employer’s policies treat pregnant workers less favorably than non-pregnant workers with similar inabilities to work and whether there are legitimate reasons for such differences.

A case in which the Court held that a decision on an issue by an administrative agency can preclude re-litigation of that issue in federal court.

A case in which the Court held that forced accompaniment during the commission of a crime occurs when a person requires another to “go with” him, even when that movement occurs over a short distance.

A case in which the Court ruled that federal agencies do not need to engage in a notice-and-comment procedure before significantly altering an interpretation of a rule of agency regulation.

A case in which the Court found that in order to violate the transmission of threats provision, the threat requires both an objective and subjective intent.

A case in which the Court held that states may not substitute their own extraneous goals for the traditional goals of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 when redrawing electoral districts.