Dismissed as improvidently granted

! style="width:10%;"|Opinion

! style="width:6%;"|Granted

! style="width:6%;"|Argued

! style="width:6%;"|Decided

! style="width:35%;"|Notes

|-

| Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis

| {{ussc|docket=24-304|volume=605}}

| 24 Jan 2025

| 29 Apr 2025

| 5 Jun 2025

| One line.{{efn|"The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted."}} Kavanaugh dissented.

|-

| NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB

| {{ussc|docket=23-970|volume=604}}

| 17 Jun 2024

| 13 Nov 2024

| 11 Dec 2024

| One line.

|-

| Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank

| {{ussc|docket=23-980|volume=604}}

| 10 Jun 2024

| 6 Nov 2024

| 22 Nov 2024

| One line.

|-

| Moyle v. United States
Idaho v. United States

| {{ussc|docket=23-726|volume=603}}

| 5 Jan 2024

| 24 Apr 2024

| 27 Jun 2024

| One line (which also included vacating the stays that the Supreme Court had previously granted). Kagan concurred, joined by Sotomayor and in part by Jackson. Barrett concurred, joined by Roberts and Kavanaugh. Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part. Alito dissented, joined by Thomas and in part by Gorsuch.

|-

| Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski

| {{ussc|docket=22-105|volume=599}}

| 8 Dec 2022

| 21 Mar 2023

| 23 Jun 2023

| Footnote 7 in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski.{{efn|"The Court's judgment today pertains to respondent Abraham Bielski. The writ of certiorari as to respondents David Suski et al. is dismissed as improvidently granted."}}

|-

| In re Grand Jury

| {{UnreportedSCOTUScase|21|1397}}

| 3 Oct 2022{{efn|Question: Whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege where obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication.}}

| 9 Jan 2023

| 23 Jan 2023

| One line.

|-

| Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco

| {{UnreportedSCOTUScase|20|1775}}

| 29 Oct 2021{{efn|Question: Whether States with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend.}}

| 23 Feb 2022

| 15 Jun 2022

| One line. Roberts concurred, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.

|-

| United States v. Texas

| {{UnreportedSCOTUScase|21|588}}

| 22 Oct 2021{{efn|Question: May the United States bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the State, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit S.B. 8 from being enforced.}}

| 1 Nov 2021

| 10 Dec 2021

| One line. Sotomayor dissented without an opinion. Argued and announced with Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson.

|-

| Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (2021)

| {{UnreportedSCOTUScase|19|963}}

| 15 Jun 2020{{efn|Question: Whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.}}

| 8 Dec 2020

| 25 Jan 2021

| One line. This was the Supreme Court's second time hearing the case, following Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (2019).

|-

| Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian

| {{UnreportedSCOTUScase|18|459}}

| 4 Jan 2019{{efn|Question: Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held, in express disagreement with five other courts of appeals, that Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 supports an inferred private right of action based on a negligent misstatement or omission made in connection with a tender offer.}}

| 15 Apr 2019

| 23 Apr 2019

| One line.

|-

| City of Hays v. Vogt

| {{UnreportedSCOTUScase|16|1495}}

| 28 Sep 2017{{efn|Question: Whether the Fifth Amendment is violated when statements are used at a probable cause hearing but not at a criminal trial.}}

| 20 Feb 2018

| 29 May 2018

| One line. Gorsuch was recused.

|-

| {{ubl|Dalmazzi v. United States|Cox v. United States}}

| {{ubl|{{UnreportedSCOTUScase|16|961}}|{{UnreportedSCOTUScase|16|1017}}}}

| 28 Sep 2017{{efn|Question (directed by the Court): Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review [these two cases] under 28 U.S.C. §1259(3).}}

| 16 Jan 2018

| 22 Jun 2018

| One line. Argued and announced with Ortiz v. United States.

|-

| Duncan v. Owens

| {{UnreportedSCOTUScase|14|1516}}

| 1 Oct 2015{{efn|Question: Did the Seventh Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a long line of this Court's decisions by awarding habeas relief in the absence of clearly established precedent from this Court?}}

| 12 Jan 2016

| 20 Jan 2016

| One line.

|-

| City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan

| {{ussc|docket=13-1412|volume=575|year=2015}}

| 25 November 2014

| 23 March 2015

| 18 May 2015

|

|-

| Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall

| {{ussc|571|83|}}

| 24 Jun 2013{{efn|Question: Whether an employer and union may violate § 302 by entering into an agreement under which the employer exercises its freedom of speech by promising to remain neutral to union organizing, its property rights by granting union representatives limited access to the employer's property and employees, and its freedom of contract by obtaining the union's promise to forego its rights to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the employer's business?}}

| 13 Nov 2013

| 10 Dec 2013

| One line. Breyer dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.

|-

| Madigan v. Levin

| {{ussc|571|1|}}

| 18 Mar 2013{{efn|Question: Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in holding, in an acknowledged departure from the rule in at least four other circuits, that state and local government employees may avoid the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act's comprehensive remedial regime by bringing age discrimination claims directly under the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.}}

| 7 Oct 2013

| 15 Oct 2013

| One line.

|-

| Boyer v. Louisiana

| {{UnreportedSCOTUScase|11|9953}}

| 5 Oct 2012{{efn|Question: Whether a state's failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years, particularly where failure was the direct result of the prosecution's choice to seek the death penalty, should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes?}}

| 14 Jan 2013

| 29 Apr 2013

| One line. Alito concurred, joined by Scalia and Thomas. Sotomayor dissented, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.

|-

| First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards

| {{UnreportedSCOTUScase|10|708}}

| 20 Jun 2011{{efn|Question: [As to certain violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, does a private purchaser of real estate settlement services] have standing to sue under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution, which provides that the federal judicial power is limited to "Cases" and "Controversies" and which this Court has interpreted to require the plaintiff to "have suffered an 'injury in fact,{{'"}} Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)?}}

| 28 Nov 2011

| 28 Jun 2012

| One line.

|-

| Vasquez v. United States

| {{UnreportedSCOTUScase|11|199}}

| 28 Nov 2011{{efn|Questions:

1. 1. Did the Seventh Circuit violate this Court's precedent on harmless error when it focused its harmless error analysis solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error (the erroneous admission of trial counsel's statements that his client would lose the case and should plead guilty for their truth) on this jury at all?
2. Did the Seventh Circuit violate Mr. Vasquez's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by determining that Mr. Vasquez should have been convicted without considering the effects of the district court's error on the jury that heard the case?}}

| 21 Mar 2012

| 2 Apr 2012

| One line.

|-

| Tolentino v. New York

| {{ussc|563|123|}}

| 15 Nov 2010{{efn|Question: Whether pre-existing identity-related governmental documents, such as motor vehicle records, obtained as the direct result of police action violative of the Fourth Amendment, are subject to the exclusionary rule?}}

| 21 Mar 2011

| 29 Mar 2011

| One line.

|-

| Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson

| {{ussc|560|272|}}

| 14 Dec 2009{{efn|Question: Whether an action for criminal contempt in a congressionally created court may be brought in the name and pursuant to the power of a private person, rather than in the name and pursuant to the power of the United States.}}

| 31 Mar 2010

| 24 May 2010

| One line. Roberts dissented, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, and Sotomayor. Sotomayor dissented, joined by Kennedy.

|-

| Sullivan v. Florida

| {{ussc|560|181|}}

| 4 May 2009{{efn|Questions:

1. Does imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a thirteen-year-old for a non-homicide violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the freakishly rare imposition of such a sentence reflects a national consensus on the reduced criminal culpability of children?
2. Given the extreme rarity of a life imprisonment without parole sentence imposed on a 13-year-old child for a non-homicide and the unavailability of substantive review in any other federal court, should this Court grant review of a recently evolved Eighth Amendment claim where the state court has refused to do so?}}

| 9 Nov 2009

| 17 May 2010

| One line.

|-

| Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams (2009)

| {{ussc|556|178|}}

| 9 Jun 2008{{efn|Question: Whether, after this Court has adjudicated the merits of a party’s federal claim and remanded the case to state court with instructions to "apply" the correct constitutional standard, the state court may interpose—for the first time in the litigation—a state-law procedural bar that is neither firmly established nor regularly followed.}}

| 3 Dec 2008

| 31 Mar 2009

| One line. This was the Supreme Court's second time hearing the case, following Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams (2007).

|-

| Bell v. Kelly

| {{ussc|555|55|}}

| 12 May 2008{{efn|Question: Did the Fourth Circuit err when, in conflict with decisions of the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, it applied the deferential standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), which is reserved for claims "adjudicated on the merits" in state court, to evaluate a claim predicated on evidence of prejudice the state court refused to consider and that was properly received for the first time in a federal evidentiary hearing?}}

| 12 Nov 2008

| 17 Nov 2008

| One line.

|-

| Roper v. Weaver

| {{ussc|550|598|}}

| 7 Dec 2006{{efn|Question: Since this court has neither held a prosecutor's penalty phase closing argument to violate due process, nor articulated, in response to a penalty phase claim, what the standard of error and prejudice would be, does a court of appeals exceed its authority under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(l) by overturning a capital sentence on the ground that the prosecutor's penalty phase closing argument was "unfairly inflammatory?"}}

| 21 Mar 2007

| 21 May 2007

| The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. Roberts concurred in the result. Scalia dissented, joined by Thomas and Alito.

|-

| Toledo-Flores v. United States

| {{ussc|549|69|}}

| 3 Apr 2006{{efn|Question: Has the Fifth Circuit erred in holding – in opposition to the Second, Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits – that a state felony conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance is a "drug trafficking crime" under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(2) and hence an "aggravated felony", under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(B), even though the same crime is a misdemeanor under federal law?}}

| 3 Oct 2006

| 5 Dec 2006

| One line. Argued and announced with Lopez v. Gonzales.

|-

| Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc.

| {{ussc|548|124|}}

| 31 Oct 2005{{efn|Question: Whether a method patent setting forth an indefinite, undescribed, and non-enabling step directing a party simply to "correlat[e]" test results can validly claim a monopoly over a basic scientific relationship used in medical treatment such that any doctor necessarily infringes the patent merely by thinking about the. relationship after looking at a test result.}}

| 21 Mar 2006

| 22 Jun 2006

| One line. Roberts was recused.

|-

| Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams

| {{ussc|547|516|}}

| 12 Dec 2005{{efn|

• Question 1: Whether a defendant corporation and its agents can constitute an "enterprise" under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 ("RICO"), in light of the settled rule that a RICO defendant must "conduct" or "participate in" the affairs of some larger enterprise and not just its own affairs.
• Question 2 (not granted): Whether plaintiffs state proximately caused injuries to business or property by alleging that the hourly wages they voluntarily accepted were too low.}}

| 26 Apr 2006

| 5 Jun 2006

| One paragraph. The Court initially granted review of only Question 1 of the cert petition. After hearing arguments, the Court dismissed as improvidently granted, but simultaneously issued a grant, vacate, remand of the entire cert petition in light of Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., which had been decided the same day.

|-

| Maryland v. Blake

| {{ussc|546|72|}}

| 18 Apr 2005{{efn|Question: When a police officer improperly communicates with a suspect after invocation of the suspect's right to counsel, does Edwards v. Arizona permit consideration of curative measures by the police, or other intervening circumstances, to conclude that a suspect later initiated communication with the police?}}

| 1 Nov 2005

| 14 Nov 2005

| One line.

|-

| Medellín v. Dretke

| {{ussc|544|660|}}

| 10 Dec 2004{{efn|

• Question 1: In a case brought by a Mexican national whose rights were adjudicated in the Avena Judgment, must a court in the United States apply as the rule of decision, notwithstanding any inconsistent United States precedent, the Avena holding that the United States courts must review and reconsider the national's conviction and sentence, without resort to procedural default doctrines?
• Question 2: In a case brought by a foreign national of a State party to the Vienna Convention [on Consular Relations], should a court in the United States give effect to the LaGrand and Avena Judgments as a matter of international judicial comity and in the interest of uniform treaty interpretation?}}

| 28 Mar 2005

| 23 May 2005

| The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. Ginsburg concurred, join by Scalia as to Part II. O'Connor dissented, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Breyer. Breyer dissented, joined by Stevens. Souter dissented. The Court later decided a related case, Medellín v. Texas (2008).

|-

| Howell v. Mississippi

| {{ussc|543|440|}}

| 28 Jun 2004{{efn|

• Question 1: Can a state court, consistent with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, refuse to instruct a jury in a death penalty case on at least one lesser included offense that is recognized in state law and supported by the evidence?
• Question 2 (directed by the Court): Was petitioner's federal constitutional claim properly raised before the Mississippi Supreme Court for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257?}}

| 29 Nov 2004

| 24 Jan 2005

| The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons.

|-

| Nike, Inc. v. Kasky

| {{ussc|539|654|}}

| 10 Jan 2003

| 23 Apr 2003

| 26 Jun 2003

| One line. Stevens concurred, joined by Ginsburg, and joined by Souter as to Part III. Kennedy dissented without an opinion. Breyer dissented, joined by O'Connor.

|-

| Abdur'Rahman v. Bell

| {{ussc|537|88|}}

| 22 Apr 2002

| 6 Nov 2002

| 10 Dec 2002

| One line. Stevens dissented.

|-

| Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley

| 537 U.S. [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep537/usrep537001/usrep537001.pdf 1]

| 19 Feb 2002

| 7 Oct 2002

| 15 Oct 2002

| One line.

|-

| Mathias v. WorldCom Technologies, Inc.

| {{ussc|535|682|}}

| 5 Mar 2001{{efn|

• Question 1: Whether a state commission's action relating to the enforcement of a previously approved section 252 interconnection agreement is a "determination under section 252" and thus is reviewable in federal court under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 252(e)(6).
• Question 2: Whether a state commission's acceptance of Congress's invitation to participate in implementing a federal regulatory scheme that provides that state commission determinations are reviewable in federal court

constitutes a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

• Question 3: Whether an official capacity action seeking prospective relief against state public utility commissioners for alleged ongoing violations of federal law in performing federal regulatory functions under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 can be maintained under the Ex parte Young doctrine.}}

| 5 Dec 2001

| 20 May 2002

| The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. O'Connor was recused.

|-

| Adams v. Florida Power Corp.

| 535 U.S. [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep535/usrep535228/usrep535228.pdf 1]

| 3 Dec 2001

| 20 Mar 2002

| 1 Apr 2002

| One line.

|-

| Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta

| {{ussc|534|103|}}

| 26 Mar 2001

| 31 Oct 2001

| 27 Nov 2001

| The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. This was the Supreme Court's third time hearing the case, following Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995) and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater (2000).

|-

| Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett

| {{ussc|531|356|}}

|

| 11 Oct 2000

| 21 Feb 2001

|

|-

| District of Columbia v. Tri County Industries, Inc.

| 531 U.S. [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep531/usrep531287/usrep531287.pdf 287]

|

| 10 Jan 2001

| 17 Jan 2001

| One line.

|-

| Ricci v. Arlington Heights

| 523 U.S. [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep523/usrep523613/usrep523613.pdf 613]

|

| 21 Apr 1998

| 4 May 1998

| One line.

|-

| Rogers v. United States

| {{ussc|522|252|}}

|

| 5 Nov 1997

| 14 Jan 1998

| Stevens wrote the plurality opinion, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer. O'Connor concurred in the result, joined by Scalia. Kennedy dissented, joined by Rehnquist and Souter.

|-

| Adams v. Robertson

| {{ussc|520|83|}}

|

| 14 Jan 1997

| 3 Mar 1997

| The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons.

|-

| Grimmett v. Brown

| 519 U.S. [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep519/usrep519233/usrep519233.pdf 233]

|

| 6 Jan 1997

| 14 Jan 1997

| One line.

|-

| Ticor Title Insurance Company v. Brown

| {{ussc|511|117|}}

|

| 1 Mar 1994

| 4 Apr 1994

| The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. O'Connor dissented, joined by Rehnquist and Kennedy.

|-

| Tennessee v. Middlebrooks

| {{ussc|510|124|}}

|

| 1 Nov 1993

| 13 Dec 1993

| One line. Blackmun dissented without an opinion.

|-

| Cavanaugh v. Roller

| 510 U.S. [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep510/usrep510042/usrep510042.pdf 42]

|

| 8 Nov 1993

| 30 Nov 1993

| One line.

|-

| Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U. S. Philips Corp.

| {{ussc|510|27|}}

|

| 12 Oct 1993

| 30 Nov 1993

| The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. Stevens dissented, joined by Blackmun.

|-

| Hadley v. United States

| 506 U.S. [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep506/usrep506019/usrep506019.pdf 19]

|

| 4 Nov 1992

| 16 Nov 1992

| One line.

|-

| Montana v. Imlay

| 506 U.S. [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep506/usrep506005/usrep506005.pdf 5]

|

| 7 Oct 1992

| 3 Nov 1992

| One line. Stevens concurred. White dissented.

|-

| PFZ Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez

| 503 U.S. [https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep503/usrep503257/usrep503257.pdf 257]

|

| 26 Feb 1992

| 9 Mar 1992

| One line.

|-

| Gibson v. Florida Bar

| {{ussc|502|104|}}

|

| 6 Nov 1991

| 4 Dec 1991

| One line.

|-

| Ohio v. Huertas

| {{ussc|498|336|}}

|

| 16 Jan 1991

| 22 Jan 1991

| One line.

|-

| Parker v. Duggar

| {{ussc|498|308|}}

|

| 7 Nov 1990

| 22 Jan 1991

|

|-

| White v. United States

| 439 U.S. [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/493/5/ 5]

|

| 3 Oct 1989

| 16 Oct 1989

| One line. White dissented without an opinion.

|}