Holding: When a plaintiff amends her complaint to delete the federal-law claims that enabled removal to federal court, leaving only state-law claims behind, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, and the case must be remanded to state court.

Holding: Where a state court's application of a state exhaustion requirement in effect immunizes state officials from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims challenging delays in the administrative process, state courts may not deny those claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds.

Holding: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives's 2022 rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 to cover certain products that can readily be converted into an operational firearm or a functional frame or receiver is not facially inconsistent with the act.

Holding: Plaintiffs who gained only preliminary injunctive relief before this action became moot do not qualify as "prevailing part[ies]" eligible for attorney"s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) because no court conclusively resolved their claims by granting enduring relief on the merits that altered the legal relationship between the parties.

Holding: The court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals; the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony under Napue v. Illinois.

Holding: Revocation of an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1155 based on a sham-marriage determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the purview of Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain actions "in the discretion of" the agency.

Holding: Under civil RICO, a plaintiff may seek treble damages for business or property loss even if the loss resulted from a personal injury.

Holding: The challenged end-result permitting provisions "which make the permittee responsible for the quality of the water in the body of water into which the permittee discharges pollutants" exceed the Environmental Protection Agency's authority under the Clean Water Act.

Holding: The Department of Veterans Affairs' determination that the evidence regarding a service-related disability claim is in "approximate balance" pursuant to the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) is a predominantly factual determination reviewed only for clear error.

Holding: The E-Rate reimbursement requests at issue are "claims" under the False Claims Act because the government "provided" (at a minimum) a "portion" of the money applied for by transferring more than $100 million from the Treasury into the fund.

Holding: In calculating the Medicare fraction, an individual is “entitled to supplementary security income benefits” when she is eligible to receive an SSI cash payment during the month of her hospitalization.

Holding: The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Holding: Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

Holding: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(2), a voluntary-departure deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day.

Holding: The knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the "use" of "physical force" against another person within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).

Holding: Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in setting aside as arbitrary and capricious the FDA's orders denying respondents' applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products pursuant to The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009; the 5th Circuit also relied on an incorrect standard to reject the FDA's claim of harmless error regarding the agency's failure to consider marketing plans submitted by respondents.

Holding: Section 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code abrogates the government's sovereign immunity with respect to a Section 544(b) claim but that waiver does not extend to state-law claims nested within that federal claim.

Holding: An allegation that a foreign sovereign liquidated expropriated property, commingled the proceeds with other funds, and then used some of those commingled funds for commercial activities in the United States cannot alone satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the expropriation exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.

Issue(s): Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity," violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Holding: A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss.

Holding: A federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to “any other provision of law ... during a national emergency” as described in 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13)(B) is entitled to differential pay if the reservist’s service temporally coincides with a declared national emergency without any showing that the service bears a substantive connection to a particular emergency.

Holding: The D. C. Circuit failed to afford the U.S. Surface Transportation Board the substantial judicial deference required in National Environmental Policy Act cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the Uinta Basin Railway.

Holding: In awarding the "defendant's profits" to the prevailing plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act a court can award only profits ascribable to the "defendant" itself.

Holding: The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners' First Amendment rights.

Issue(s): Whether the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act's enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act's enactment.

Issue(s): Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee "who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed" loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.

Holding: Title 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits "knowingly mak[ing] any false statement," does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false.

Holding: A case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) counts as a "final proceeding" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech.

Issue(s): Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Issue(s): Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer's products that is located within that circuit.

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s moment-of-threat rule — a framework for evaluating police shootings which requires a court to look only to the circumstances existing at the precise time an officer perceived the threat inducing him to shoot — improperly narrows the Fourth Amendment analysis of police use of force.

Holding: To state a claim under Section 1106(a)(1)(C), a plaintiff need only plausibly allege the elements contained in that provision itself, without addressing potential Section 1108 exemptions.

Issue(s): Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff's injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.

Issue(s): Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)'s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.

Issue(s): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule — which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII discrimination claim — cannot be squared with either the text of Title VII or the Supreme Court’s precedents.

Holding: Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint; a party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard can apply.

Holding: To exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign state, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not require proof of “minimum contacts” over and above the contacts already required by the act’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.

Holding: Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act bars the lawsuit.

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a "party aggrieved" by an agency's "final order" to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency's statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.

Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature"s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.

Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.

Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency's denial actions are "nationally applicable" or, alternatively, are "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect."

Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.

Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress's conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC's delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.

Holding: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision denying Catholic Charities Bureau a tax emption available to religious entities under Wisconsin law on the grounds that they were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” because they neither engaged in proselytization nor limited their charitable services to Catholics violated the First Amendment.

Holding: Once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a first-filed habeas petition, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a “second or successive application” under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 properly subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary's supervision.

Holding: A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the federal court grants reopening under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) need not file a second notice after reopening, because the original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.

Holding: The United States Tax Court lacks jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 to resolve disputes between a taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service when the IRS is no longer pursuing a levy.

Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents' religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents' religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.

Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.

Holding: The CRSC — a statute providing “combat-related special compensation” to qualifying veterans who have suffered combat-related disabilities — confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the settlement procedures and limitations period under the Barring Act.

Holding: Schoolchildren bringing claims related to their education under either Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.

Holding: The Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in a suit against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the law enforcement proviso in Section 2680(h) of the act overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout Section 2680.

Holding: Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

Holding: Judgment affirmed by an equally divided court.