Watching the government
Two ways to watch the Supreme Court
Tracking Decisions of the Supreme Court.
How the Court ruled, how the justices split, and what each opinion holds.
The securities the justices disclose buying and selling, from their annual filings.
When the Court decides a case, we read the opinion and say what it holds, in plain language. We show how the justices split, who wrote for the Court, and what the majority and any dissent each argued. Every claim here is tied to the text of the opinion itself.
The record so far
- 185
- Decisions decoded
- 88
- Decided unanimously
- 97
- Decided with a dissent
- 1
- Overruled a precedent
The record
How the decisions split.
By the shape of the vote. Warmer color marks a closer decision.
The justices
Where each justice stood.
How often each justice was with the Court's outcome, most to least.
The subjects
What the decisions were about.
What the decisions were about, most common first.
Filters
185 decisions
- No. 24-43Jun 30, 2026Education6-3
West Virginia v. B. P. J.
In favor 6Against 3KavanaughRobertsThomasAlitoGorsuchBarrettSotomayorKaganJacksonWhat the Court decided
The Court reversed the Fourth and Ninth Circuits and remanded, upholding West Virginia's and Idaho's laws that restrict female sports teams to biological females. Title IX allows schools to provide separate men's and women's teams defined by biological sex. The Equal Protection Clause does not bar States from maintaining female teams for biological females, because laws separating teams by biological sex are subject to intermediate scrutiny and satisfy it by serving the important governmental interest of promoting equal athletic opportunities for women and girls.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The Court reversed the judgments of both the Fourth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit and remanded the cases.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court held that Title IX allows schools to provide separate women's and men's sports teams defined by biological sex.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court held that laws separating sports teams by biological sex are subject to intermediate scrutiny and satisfy it by serving the important governmental interest of promoting equal athletic opportunities for women and girls.Source: syllabus, Held
- Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, joined by Kagan and Jackson, and Jackson also filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 24-621Jun 30, 2026Government6-3
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’n
In favor 6Against 3KavanaughRobertsThomasAlitoGorsuchBarrettKaganSotomayorJacksonWhat the Court decided
The Court struck down federal limits on coordinated spending between a political party and its own candidates. It held those limits, part of the campaign finance law, violate the First Amendment because a party's spending in concert with the candidates it exists to elect is core political speech the government may not cap.
How we know: 3 sourced claims
- The Court held that FECA's limits on political-party coordinated expenditures violate the First Amendment.Source: syllabus, Held, at 24-621
- The Court reasoned a party's spending coordinated with its own candidates is core political speech.Source: opinion of the Court (Kavanaugh, J.)
- Kavanaugh, J., wrote for the Court, joined by Roberts, C.J., and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, JJ.; Kagan, J., dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 25-365Jun 30, 2026Immigration7-2
Trump v. Barbara
In favor 7Against 2RobertsSotomayorKaganGorsuchKavanaughBarrettJacksonThomasAlitoWhat the Court decided
The Court affirmed the injunction against Executive Order No. 14160 and held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth. Such children are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. The Executive Order, which denied them birthright citizenship, is inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The Court held that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court held that Executive Order No. 14160 is inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court affirmed the District Court's injunction against the Executive Order.Source: syllabus, Held
- Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Alito.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 24-1260Jun 29, 2026Government7-2
Watson v. Republican National Committee
In favor 7Against 2BarrettRobertsSotomayorKaganKavanaughJacksonGorsuchAlitoThomasWhat the Court decided
The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that Mississippi may count absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five business days later. The federal election-day statutes do not require ballots to be received by election day, so they do not preempt Mississippi's law. The case was remanded.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The Court held that federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court found nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Fifth Circuit had held Mississippi's law preempted, and the Court reversed and remanded.Source: syllabus, Held
- Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Alito filed a dissenting opinion joined by Thomas, and Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 25-112Jun 29, 2026Crime6-3
Chatrie v. United States
In favor 6Against 3KaganRobertsSotomayorKavanaughJacksonGorsuchAlitoThomasBarrettWhat the Court decided
The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's judgment and remanded. It held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Okello Chatrie's Google Location History data, because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. The Court reasoned that Location History gives an even more detailed and revealing record of a person's movements than the cell-site location information it treated as a search in Carpenter, and that the third-party doctrine does not strip that protection. The Court did not decide whether the multi-step geofence warrant was reasonable, leaving the particularity and probable-cause questions for the Court of Appeals on remand.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- Police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie's Location History data from Google.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court reasoned that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court declined to apply the third-party doctrine to Location History, following Carpenter's treatment of cell-site location information.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court left to the Court of Appeals the question whether the multi-step geofence warrant satisfied the requirements of particularity and probable cause.Source: syllabus, Held
- Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, and the judgment vacated and remanded the Fourth Circuit.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 25-332Jun 29, 2026Government6-3
Trump v. Slaughter
In favor 6Against 3RobertsAlitoGorsuchKavanaughBarrettThomasSotomayorKaganJacksonWhat the Court decided
The Court held that the FTC's for-cause removal provision is unconstitutional. The Constitution vests the executive power in the President and requires that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and to remain accountable to him the officers who exercise that power must be removable by him. The statute limited removal of Commissioners to inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, which the Court found contrary to the separation of powers.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The Court held that the FTC's for-cause removal provision is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.Source: syllabus, Held
- The statute permits removal of FTC Commissioners by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.Source: syllabus, Held
- Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and by Thomas as to all but Part III-B.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan and Jackson joined.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 24-1068Jun 25, 2026Environment7-2
Monsanto v. Durnell
In favor 7Against 2KavanaughRobertsThomasAlitoSotomayorKaganBarrettJacksonGorsuchWhat the Court decided
The Court reversed the judgment against Monsanto and held that FIFRA preempts Durnell's state-law failure-to-warn claim. Because federal law requires Monsanto to sell Roundup with the label the EPA approved, and the EPA did not require a cancer warning, a state-law duty to add a cancer warning would impose a labeling requirement different from the federal one. FIFRA's uniformity clause bars states from imposing labeling requirements in addition to or different from those required under the federal statute.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The Court held that FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell's state-law failure-to-warn claim because it would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup's label.Source: syllabus, Held
- FIFRA's uniformity clause provides that a state shall not impose or continue in effect any labeling or packaging requirements in addition to or different from those required under the federal statute.Source: syllabus, Held
- The EPA had not required a cancer warning on glyphosate-based pesticides like Roundup, having concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer.Source: syllabus, Held
- Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Gorsuch.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 25-1083Jun 25, 2026Immigration6-3
Mullin v. Doe
In favor 6Against 3AlitoRobertsThomasKavanaughGorsuchBarrettKaganSotomayorJacksonWhat the Court decided
The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of respondents' non-constitutional claims, so the interim relief postponing the terminations cannot stand. Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) states there is no judicial review of any determination of the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the designation, termination, or extension of a foreign state's TPS designation, and that language covers procedural as well as substantive claims. The Court further held that the equal protection claim that Haiti's designation was terminated because of race is unlikely to succeed. Six justices reached this outcome over a three-justice dissent.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The Court held that the TPS statute, 5 U.S.C. Section 1254a(b)(5)(A), bars judicial review of respondents' non-constitutional claims.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court reasoned that the term determination reaches both procedural and substantive questions, so the bar is not limited to substantive claims.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court held that the equal protection claim that Haiti's TPS designation was terminated because of race is unlikely to succeed.Source: syllabus, Held
- Alito delivered the opinion of the Court except as to Part III-A, joined in full by Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, and joined except for Part III-A by Gorsuch and Barrett.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Kagan filed a dissenting opinion in which Sotomayor and Jackson joined, producing a 6-3 outcome.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 25-5Jun 25, 2026Immigration6-3
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
In favor 6Against 3AlitoRobertsThomasGorsuchKavanaughBarrettSotomayorKaganJacksonWhat the Court decided
The Court reversed. An alien standing in Mexico does not "arrive in the United States" by attempting and failing to set foot in the country; an alien arrives only when he crosses the border. The INA therefore neither entitles an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him. The Court read the phrase "arrives in the United States" to carry its ordinary meaning, under which a person arrives in a place only when he enters within its area.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The Court held that an alien standing in Mexico does not arrive in the United States by attempting and failing to set foot in the country, and arrives only when he crosses the border.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court held that the INA neither entitles an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court held the case is not moot because the declaratory judgment continues to bar the Government from using metering and a ruling for the Government could reverse it.Source: syllabus, Held
- Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion joined by Kagan and Jackson, and Jackson filed a separate dissenting opinion.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 24-1046Jun 25, 2026Crime6-3
Wolford v. Lopez
In favor 6Against 3AlitoRobertsThomasGorsuchKavanaughBarrettKaganJacksonSotomayorWhat the Court decided
The Court struck down Hawaii's law barring licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public unless the owner gives express authorization. The Court held that carrying handguns for self-defense falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment, so the restriction is presumptively unconstitutional. Hawaii's shift from the common-law rule imposes a new and significant burden on the right recognized in Bruen. The permit holders challenging the law prevail.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- Hawaii's law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.Source: syllabus, Held
- The restrictions imposed by Hawaii's law fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment, so the law is presumptively unconstitutional.Source: syllabus, Held
- Hawaii's shift from the common-law rule imposes a new and significant burden on the right recognized in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.Source: syllabus, Held
- Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Kagan filed a dissent, and Jackson filed a dissent joined by Sotomayor.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 24-856Jun 23, 2026Law6-3
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe
In favor 6Against 3BarrettRobertsThomasAlitoGorsuchKavanaughSotomayorJacksonKaganWhat the Court decided
Federal courts may not recognize new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute. The Court held that judicial authority under Sosa's second step was narrow from the start, that ATS cases inherently implicate foreign policy, and that the power to create causes of action belongs to Congress. Because Congress is better positioned to weigh the policy tradeoffs of new international-law liability, courts may not fashion such rights of action themselves.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The Court held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court reasoned that judicial authority under Sosa's second step was narrow at the outset.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Court reasoned that the power to create causes of action belongs to Congress, which is better positioned than courts to evaluate the policy tradeoffs of creating liability.Source: syllabus, Held
- Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Kagan; Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Kagan and Jackson as to Parts I-III and V.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 24-699Jun 23, 2026Foreign Affairs6-3
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba)
In favor 6Against 3KavanaughRobertsThomasAlitoGorsuchBarrettKaganSotomayorJacksonWhat the Court decided
The Court held that the Helms-Burton Act itself abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities. A U.S. national suing a Cuban agency or instrumentality under the Act does not also have to satisfy one of the FSIA's enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity. The reason is that the Act creates a cause of action that expressly runs against Cuban agencies and instrumentalities, and under the Court's precedents a statute whose cause of action explicitly applies against a sovereign waives that sovereign's immunity even without a separate waiver provision.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The Court held that the Helms-Burton Act itself abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities.Source: syllabus, Held
- Plaintiffs who sue Cuban agencies or instrumentalities under the Act need not also satisfy one of the FSIA's enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.Source: syllabus, Held
- A congressional waiver of sovereign immunity must be clearly discernible from the sum total of Congress's work.Source: syllabus, Held
- A statute creating a cause of action that explicitly applies against a sovereign waives that sovereign's immunity even without a separate waiver provision.Source: syllabus, Held
- Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett; Kagan filed a dissent joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 23-1197Jun 23, 2026Civil Rights6-3
Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety
In favor 6Against 3GorsuchRobertsThomasAlitoKavanaughBarrettJacksonSotomayorKaganWhat the Court decided
The Court limited when prison officials can be sued personally for money damages under the religious-rights law RLUIPA. It held that individuals cannot be held liable in their personal capacities under a Spending Clause statute like RLUIPA unless they voluntarily and knowingly agreed to answer such suits, and because the officials here had not, the damages claim could not proceed against them personally.
How we know: 3 sourced claims
- The Court held individuals may not be held personally liable under a Spending Clause statute like RLUIPA absent their voluntary, knowing consent.Source: syllabus, Held, at 23-1197
- Because the officials had not so consented, the personal-capacity damages claim could not proceed.Source: syllabus
- Gorsuch, J., wrote for the Court; Jackson, J., dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 25-95Jun 23, 2026TaxationUnanimous
Pung v. Isabella County
In favor 9AlitoRobertsSotomayorKaganGorsuchKavanaughBarrettJacksonThomasWhat the Court decided
The Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit. The proper baseline for measuring just compensation after a tax sale is the auction sale price, not the property's hypothetical fair market value, at least when the sale is fairly conducted. The Court grounded this in centuries of English and American law permitting seizure and sale of property to collect taxes, so long as the government returns any surplus proceeds to the debtor. Pung was entitled to the surplus proceeds from the sale, not the difference between the property's assessed value and his tax debt.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The proper baseline for measuring just compensation following a tax sale is the auction sale price, not the property's hypothetical fair market value, at least when the sale is fairly conducted.Source: syllabus, Held
- English and American law have for hundreds of years allowed the seizure and sale of property as a tax-collection method, provided the government returns any surplus proceeds to the debtor.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court, and the Supreme Court affirmed.Source: syllabus, Held
- Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, and by Thomas except as to Part II-B.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Gorsuch except as to a footnote.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 25-429Jun 23, 2026Immigration6-3
Blanche v. Lau
In favor 6Against 3ThomasRobertsAlitoGorsuchKavanaughBarrettJacksonSotomayorKaganWhat the Court decided
The Court reversed the Second Circuit and held that the INA does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission. Charging a lawful permanent resident with inadmissibility involves two steps. At step one, only commission of the crime is required to regard the alien as seeking admission. At step two, conviction or admission of the crime is required to establish inadmissibility. Because Lau had committed and then was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, he was correctly charged with inadmissibility.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The INA does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.Source: syllabus, Held
- Charging a lawful permanent resident with inadmissibility involves two steps: at step one only commission of the crime is required, and at step two conviction or admission is required to show inadmissibility.Source: syllabus, Held
- Lau was correctly charged with inadmissibility because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before reentry and had been convicted of that crime.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Second Circuit had concluded the Government bore the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Lau actually committed the crime at the time of reentry.Source: syllabus, Held
- Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett; Jackson filed a dissent joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 25-748Jun 22, 2026CrimeUnanimous
McCarthy v. Hernandez
In favor 9RobertsThomasAlitoSotomayorKaganGorsuchKavanaughBarrettJacksonWhat the Court decided
The Court summarily reversed a grant of habeas relief, holding the federal appeals court exceeded the strict limits federal habeas law places on second-guessing state courts. The precedent the appeals court relied on addressed a judge's suppression ruling and said nothing about jury instructions, so no clearly established federal law required the state court to instruct the jury as the appeals court demanded.
How we know: 2 sourced claims
- The Court held the Second Circuit exceeded the limits AEDPA places on federal habeas review.Source: syllabus, Held, at 25-748
- The precedent relied on addressed a suppression ruling, not jury instructions.Source: syllabus
- No. 24-1234Jun 18, 2026CrimeUnanimous
United States v. Hemani
In favor 9GorsuchRobertsThomasSotomayorKavanaughBarrettJacksonAlitoKaganWhat the Court decided
The Court held that prosecuting Mr. Hemani under the federal law barring gun possession by an unlawful drug user violated the Second Amendment as applied to him. Every justice agreed with the outcome. The Court found the government could not point to a historical tradition that supported disarming this defendant on this record.
How we know: 3 sourced claims
- The Court held that prosecuting Hemani under the unlawful-user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.Source: syllabus, Held, at 24-1234
- The Court found no historical tradition supporting his disarmament on this record.Source: opinion of the Court (Gorsuch, J.)
- Gorsuch, J., wrote for the Court, joined by six Justices; Alito, J., concurred in the judgment, joined by Kagan, J.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 24-1063Jun 18, 2026Crime8-1
Hunter v. United States
In favor 8Against 1KaganRobertsAlitoSotomayorGorsuchKavanaughBarrettJacksonThomasWhat the Court decided
The Court held that an appeal waiver in a plea agreement is unenforceable when enforcing it would work a miscarriage of justice, meaning it would leave in place the kind of serious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. Eight justices agreed on the result; Justice Thomas dissented.
How we know: 2 sourced claims
- The Court held an appeal waiver is unenforceable when it would leave in place an serious error that brings the judicial system into disrepute.Source: syllabus, Held, at 24-1063
- Kagan wrote for the Court; Thomas dissented.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 25-197Jun 18, 2026Law5-4
T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation
In favor 5Against 4SotomayorThomasAlitoKavanaughJacksonBarrettRobertsKaganGorsuchWhat the Court decided
The Court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over suits by state-court losers seeking review and rejection of state-court judgments even when those judgments remain subject to further review in state appellate proceedings. Federal district courts lack any power to directly review state-court judgments, and the Supreme Court is the only federal court with appellate jurisdiction over them. The bar therefore applies regardless of whether the state judgment is still open to further state appellate review.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- The Court held the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction regardless of whether the state-court judgment remains subject to further review in state appellate proceedings.Source: syllabus, Held
- The doctrine applies to cases brought by state-court losers seeking district court review and rejection of state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Supreme Court is the only federal court with appellate jurisdiction to review state-court judgments, which extends only to final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had under 28 U.S.C. Section 1257(a).Source: syllabus, Held
- Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jackson.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch.Source: syllabus, lineup
- No. 25-6Jun 11, 2026LawUnanimous
Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.
In favor 9JacksonRobertsAlitoKaganKavanaughBarrettThomasGorsuchSotomayorWhat the Court decided
The Court vacated and remanded. To decide whether a debtor's failure to disclose a claim in bankruptcy was inadvertent or mistaken for purposes of judicial estoppel, courts must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the omission. The Court held that the Fifth Circuit erred by narrowing its inquiry to only whether the debtor knew the underlying facts and had a potential motive to conceal the claim. Because judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it demands a flexible, case-by-case inquiry rather than a near-dispositive two-factor test.
How we know: 5 sourced claims
- Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch joined.Source: syllabus, lineup
- Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.Source: syllabus, lineup
- The Court held that courts must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding an omission to determine whether it was inadvertent or mistaken for purposes of judicial estoppel.Source: syllabus, Held
- The Fifth Circuit erred by narrowing its inquiry to whether the debtor knew the underlying facts or had a potential motive to conceal the claim.Source: syllabus, Held
All decisions
Every decision decoded so far, oldest caption to newest term.
- West Virginia v. B. P. J.OT2025
- National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’nOT2025
- Trump v. BarbaraOT2025
- Watson v. Republican National CommitteeOT2025
- Chatrie v. United StatesOT2025
- Trump v. SlaughterOT2025
- Monsanto v. DurnellOT2025
- Mullin v. DoeOT2025
- Mullin v. Al Otro LadoOT2025
- Wolford v. LopezOT2025
- Cisco Systems, Inc. v. DoeOT2025
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba)OT2025
- Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public SafetyOT2025
- Pung v. Isabella CountyOT2025
- Blanche v. LauOT2025
- McCarthy v. HernandezOT2025
- United States v. HemaniOT2025
- Hunter v. United StatesOT2025
- T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System CorporationOT2025
- Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.OT2025
- FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.OT2025
- Abouammo v. United StatesOT2025
- Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.OT2025
- Sripetch v. SECOT2025
- FCC v. AT&TOT2025
- Whitton v. DixonOT2025
- Rutherford v. United StatesOT2025
- Fernandez v. United StatesOT2025
- Pitchford v. CainOT2025
- Flowers Foods, Inc. v. BrockOT2025
- Margolin v. NAIJOT2025
- Hamm v. SmithOT2025
- M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. PensionOT2025
- Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.OT2025
- Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLCOT2025
- Jules v. Andre Balazs PropertiesOT2025
- First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. DavenportOT2025
- Louisiana v. CallaisOT2025
- Enbridge Energy, LP v. NesselOT2025
- Hencely v. Fluor Corp.OT2025
- District of Columbia v. R.W.OT2025
- Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines ParishOT2025
- Chiles v. SalazarOT2025
- Rico v. United StatesOT2025
- Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music EntertainmentOT2025
- Zorn v. LintonOT2025
- Olivier v. City of BrandonOT2025
- Urias-Orellana v. BondiOT2025
- Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp.OT2025
- Villarreal v. TexasOT2025
- Geo Group, Inc. v. MenocalOT2025
- Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. PalmquistOT2025
- Postal Service v. KonanOT2025
- Learning Resources, Inc. v. TrumpOT2025
- Klein v. MartinOT2025
- Berk v. ChoyOT2025
- Ellingburg v. United StatesOT2025
- Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. BurtonOT2025
- Barrett v. United StatesOT2025
- Case v. MontanaOT2025
- Bost v. Illinois Bd. of ElectionsOT2025
- Bowe v. United StatesOT2025
- Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLCOT2025
- Clark v. SweeneyOT2025
- Pitts v. MississippiOT2025
- Goldey v. FieldsOT2024
- Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.OT2024
- FCC v. Consumers’ ResearchOT2024
- Mahmoud v. TaylorOT2024
- Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. PaxtonOT2024
- Hewitt v. United StatesOT2024
- Medina v. Planned Parenthood South AtlanticOT2024
- Gutierrez v. SaenzOT2024
- Riley v. BondiOT2024
- FDA v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co.OT2024
- Esteras v. United StatesOT2024
- McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.OT2024
- Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPAOT2024
- Stanley v. City of SanfordOT2024
- Fuld v. Palestine Liberation OrganizationOT2024
- NRC v. TexasOT2024
- EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C.OT2024
- Oklahoma v. EPAOT2024
- United States v. SkrmettiOT2024
- Perttu v. RichardsOT2024
- Rivers v. GuerreroOT2024
- Commissioner v. ZuchOT2024
- Martin v. United StatesOT2024
- Parrish v. United StatesOT2024
- Soto v. United StatesOT2024
- A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279OT2024
- Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. DavisOT2024
- Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth ServicesOT2024
- Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos MexicanosOT2024
- Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Comm’n.OT2024
- CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.OT2024
- BLOM Bank SAL v. HonickmanOT2024
- Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle CountyOT2024
- OK Charter School Board v. DrummondOT2024
- Kousisis v. United StatesOT2024
- Barnes v. FelixOT2024
- Feliciano v. Department Of TransportationOT2024
- Advocate Christ Medical Center v. KennedyOT2024
- Monsalvo Velazquez v. BondiOT2024
- Cunningham v. Cornell Univ.OT2024
- Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. HornOT2024
- FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLCOT2024
- United States v. MillerOT2024
- Bondi v. VanderstokOT2024
- Delligatti v. United StatesOT2024
- Thompson v. United StatesOT2024
- Bufkin v. CollinsOT2024
- City and County of San Francisco v. EPAOT2024
- Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc.OT2024
- Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.OT2024
- Glossip v. OklahomaOT2024
- Lackey v. StinnieOT2024
- Williams v. ReedOT2024
- Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. HeathOT2024
- Hungary v. SimonOT2024
- Andrew v. WhiteOT2024
- TikTok Inc. v. GarlandOT2024
- E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. CarreraOT2024
- Royal Canin U. S. A. v. WullschlegerOT2024
- NVIDIA v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder ABOT2024
- Bouarfa v. MayorkasOT2024
- Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated BankOT2024
- Hamm v. SmithOT2024
- Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of GovernorsOT2023
- Moody v. NetChoice, LLCOT2023
- Trump v. United StatesOT2023
- City of Grants Pass v. JohnsonOT2023
- Fischer v. United StatesOT2023
- Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoOT2023
- Moyle v. United StatesOT2023
- Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.OT2023
- SEC v. JarkesyOT2023
- Murthy v. MissouriOT2023
- Snyder v. United StatesOT2023
- Department of State v. MunozOT2023
- Erlinger v. United StatesOT2023
- Smith v. ArizonaOT2023
- United States v. RahimiOT2023
- Gonzalez v. TrevinoOT2023
- Moore v. United StatesOT2023
- Chiaverini v. City of NapoleonOT2023
- Diaz v. United StatesOT2023
- United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLCOT2023
- Campos-Chaves v. GarlandOT2023
- Garland v. CargillOT2023
- FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic MedicineOT2023
- Starbucks Corp. v. McKinneyOT2023
- Vidal v. ElsterOT2023
- Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co.OT2023
- Connelly v. United StatesOT2023
- Becerra v. San Carlos Apache TribeOT2023
- Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A.OT2023
- National Rifle Association of America v. VulloOT2023
- Thornell v. JonesOT2023
- Coinbase v. SuskiOT2023
- Brown v. United StatesOT2023
- Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACPOT2023
- Harrow v. Department of DefenseOT2023
- Smith v. SpizzirriOT2023
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.OT2023
- Culley v. MarshallOT2023
- Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. NealyOT2023
- Muldrow v. City of St. LouisOT2023
- McIntosh v. United StatesOT2023
- Rudisill v. McDonoughOT2023
- DeVillier v. TexasOT2023
- Sheetz v. El Dorado CountyOT2023
- Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L. P.OT2023
- Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLCOT2023
- FBI v. FikreOT2023
- Wilkinson v. GarlandOT2023
- O’Connor-Ratcliff v. GarnierOT2023
- Lindke v. FreedOT2023
- Pulsifer v. United StatesOT2023
- Trump v. AndersonOT2023
- McElrath v. GeorgiaOT2023
- Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.OT2023
- Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. KirtzOT2023
- Murray v. UBS Securities, LLCOT2023
- Acheson Hotels, LLC v. LauferOT2023