Supreme Court Cases, October Term 2019-2020

SCOTUS
Cases by term
2025-2026 term2024-2025 term2023-2024 term2022-2023 term2021-2022 term2020-2021 term2019-2020 term2018-2019 term2017-2018 term2016-2017 term2015-2016 termSubmit
Judgeships
Posts: 9
Judges: 9
Judges
Chief: John Roberts
Active: Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. It is often referred to by the acronym SCOTUS.^[1]

The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2019. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.^[2] Delays from the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 caused the court to release opinions into July for the first time since 1996.^[3]

The court issued decisions in 63 cases this term. Between the 2007 and 2019 terms, SCOTUS released opinions in 991 cases, averaging 76 cases per year.

The court agreed to hear 74 cases during its 2019-2020 term. Twelve cases were postponed to the 2020-2021 term, due to the coronavirus pandemic. One case, Sharp v. Murphy, was never scheduled for argument and another case, Walker v. United States, was dismissed without argument after the petitioner died.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on March 12, 2020, that it was closing to the public indefinitely "out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees." On April 13, the court announced it would hear oral arguments by telephone conference in a number of cases from its March and April sittings. The court had postponed the 20 hours of oral argument originally scheduled during these sittings. The delays were "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19."^[4][5] Click here for more information about the court's response to the coronavirus pandemic.

See the sections below for additional information on the October 2019 term of the Supreme Court of the United States.

1. Cases by circuit: This section lists the cases being heard by the court of origination (e.g., federal appellate courts, federal district courts, state courts, etc.).
2. Cases by sitting: This section lists the cases being heard by the date of oral argument.
3. Cases by date of opinion: This section lists the cases by the date the court released an opinion.
4. Term data: This section provides information on the cases SCOTUS decided, including case names, decisions, vote totals, opinion authors, and courts of origination. It also includes information on SCOTUS case reversal rates.
5. Case history: This section provides information on previous SCOTUS terms.

Cases by circuit[edit]

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution establishes the court's jurisdiction. The court has original jurisdiction—when it is the first and only to hear a case—and appellate jurisdiction—when it reviews the decisions of lower courts.^[6]

Parties petition SCOTUS to hear a case if they are not satisfied with a lower court's decision. The parties petition the court to grant a writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari is an "order issued by the U.S. Supreme Court directing the lower court to transmit records for a case it will hear on appeal."^[6][7]

Circuits[edit]

Where are the cases coming from?[edit]

List of argued cases by court of origination - 2019-2020 term
Court	Number of cases
United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit	1
United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit	9
United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit	5
United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit	5
United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	5
United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit	4
United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit	1
United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit	3
United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	9
United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit	5
United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit	7
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit	2
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit	5
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces	1
State and district courts	11
Original jurisdiction	1
Total	74
Source: Supreme Court of the United States, "Granted & noted list: October term 2019 cases for argument," accessed October 22, 2019

Geographic boundaries[edit]

Select a region to learn more about its court of appeals.

Beyond the Headlines: Previewing the October 2019-2020 SCOTUS term Released October 3, 2019

Cases by sitting[edit]

SCOTUS' term is divided into sittings, when the justices hear cases.^[8]

October sitting[edit]

October 7, 2019

• Kahler v. Kansas
• Peter v. NantKwest
• Ramos v. Louisiana

October 8, 2019

• Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (Consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda)
• R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC

October 15, 2019

• Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment LLC (Consolidated with Aurelius Investment v. Puerto Rico, Official Committee of Debtors v. Aurelius Investment, United States v. Aurelius Investment, and UTIER v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico)

October 16, 2019

• Kansas v. Garcia
• Rotkiske v. Klemm
• Mathena v. Malvo

November sitting[edit]

November 4, 2019

• Barton v. Barr
• Kansas v. Glover

November 5, 2019

• CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd.
• Allen v. Cooper

November 6, 2019

• County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
• Retirement Plan Committee of IBM v. Jander

November 12, 2019

• Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (Consolidated with Trump v. NAACP and Wolf v. Vidal)
• Hernandez v. Mesa

November 13, 2019

• Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media
• Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry

December sitting[edit]

December 2, 2019

• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
• Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc.

December 3, 2019

• Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
• Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian

December 4, 2019

• Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma
• Banister v. Davis

December 9, 2019

• Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr (Consolidated with Ovalles v. Barr)
• Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP

December 10, 2019

• Maine Community Health Options v. United States (Consolidated with Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States)
• Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S.

December 11, 2019

• Monasky v. Taglieri
• McKinney v. Arizona

January sitting[edit]

January 13, 2020

• Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashion Group
• Thole v. U.S. Bank

January 14, 2020

• Kelly v. United States
• Romag Fasteners v. Fossil

January 15, 2020

• Babb v. Wilkie

January 21, 2020

• Shular v. United States
• GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC

January 22, 2020

• Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

February sitting[edit]

February 24, 2020

• United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association (Consolidated with Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association)
• Opati v. Republic of Sudan

February 25, 2020

• United States v. Sineneng-Smith

February 26, 2020

• Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez

March 2, 2020

• Nasrallah v. Barr
• Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam

March 3, 2020

• Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
• Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission

March 4, 2020

• June Medical Services LLC v. Russo (Consolidated with Russo v. June Medical Services)

March sitting (postponed)[edit]

On March 16, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it was postponing the oral arguments scheduled during the March sitting in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Click here for more information.

The arguments were originally scheduled for the following dates:

March 23, 2020

• United States v. Briggs (Consolidated with United States v. Collins)
• United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.

March 24, 2020

• Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc.
• FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir

March 25, 2020

• Carney v. Adams
• USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International

March 30, 2020

• Torres v. Madrid
• Pereida v. Barr

March 31, 2020

• Trump v. Mazars USA (Consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG)
• Trump v. Vance

April 1, 2020

• Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (Consolidated with St. James School v. Biel)

April sitting (postponed)[edit]

On April 3, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it was postponing the oral arguments scheduled during the April sitting in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Click here for more information.

The arguments were originally scheduled for the following dates:

April 20, 2020

• City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton

April 21, 2020

• McGirt v. Oklahoma
• Texas v. New Mexico

April 22, 2020

• Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc.

April 27, 2020

• Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (Consolidated with Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer)
• Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association

April 28, 2020

• Chiafalo v. Washington
• Colorado Department of State v. Baca

April 29, 2020

• Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (Consolidated with Trump v. Pennsylvania)

May sitting[edit]

On April 13, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear oral arguments by telephone conference in 13 cases from its March and April sittings, which had previously been postponed. The delays were "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19."^[4][5]

May 4, 2020

• United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.

May 5, 2020

• USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International

May 6, 2020

• Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (Consolidated with Trump v. Pennsylvania)
• Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc.

May 11, 2020

• McGirt v. Oklahoma
• Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (Consolidated with St. James School v. Biel)

May 12, 2020

• Trump v. Mazars USA (Consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG)
• Trump v. Vance

May 13, 2020

• Chiafalo v. Washington
• Colorado Department of State v. Baca

Cases not set for argument[edit]

• Sharp v. Murphy

Cases decided without argument[edit]

• Davis v. United States
• Thompson v. Hebdon
• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano
• Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee
• Andrus v. Texas
• Barr v. Lee

Cases removed from argument calendar[edit]

• Walker v. United States

Cases postponed to 2020-2021 term[edit]

The following cases were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic.

• United States v. Briggs (Consolidated with United States v. Collins)
• Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc.
• FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir
• Carney v. Adams
• Torres v. Madrid
• Pereida v. Barr
• City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton
• Texas v. New Mexico
• Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (Consolidated with Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer)
• Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association

Cases scheduled for next term[edit]

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the 2020-2021 term on October 5, 2020. Click here for more information.

Cases by date of opinion[edit]

October[edit]

The court did not deliver opinions in October.

November[edit]

November 25, 2019

• Thompson v. Hebdon (Decided without argument)

December[edit]

December 10, 2019

• Rotkiske v. Klemm

December 11, 2019

• Peter v. NantKwest

January[edit]

January 14, 2020

• Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry
• Retirement Plan Committee of IBM v. Jander

February[edit]

February 24, 2020

• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano (Decided without argument)

February 25, 2020

• McKinney v. Arizona
• Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
• Hernandez v. Mesa
• Monasky v. Taglieri

February 26, 2020

• Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma
• Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S.
• Shular v. United States

March[edit]

March 3, 2020

• Kansas v. Garcia

March 23, 2020

• Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media
• Allen v. Cooper
• Kahler v. Kansas
• Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr
• Davis v. United States (Decided without argument)

March 30, 2020

• CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd.

April[edit]

April 6, 2020

• Kansas v. Glover
• Babb v. Wilkie
• Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (Decided without argument)

April 20, 2020

• Ramos v. Louisiana
• Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
• Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP

April 23, 2020

• Barton v. Barr
• County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
• Romag Fasteners v. Fossil

April 27, 2020

• Maine Community Health Options v. United States
• Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc.
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

May[edit]

May 7, 2020

• Kelly v. United States
• United States v. Sineneng-Smith

May 14, 2020

• Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashion Group

May 18, 2020

• Opati v. Republic of Sudan

June[edit]

June 1, 2020

• Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment LLC (Consolidated with Aurelius Investment v. Puerto Rico, Official Committee of Debtors v. Aurelius Investment, United States v. Aurelius Investment, and UTIER v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico)
• Nasrallah v. Barr
• Banister v. Davis
• Thole v. U.S. Bank
• GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC

June 8, 2020

• Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez

June 15, 2020

• Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (Consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC)
• United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association
• Andrus v. Texas (Decided without argument)

June 18, 2020

• Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (Consolidated with Trump v. NAACP and Wolf v. Vidal)

June 22, 2020

• Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission

June 25, 2020

• Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam

June 29, 2020

• USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International
• June Medical Services LLC v. Russo (Consolidated with Russo v. June Medical Services)
• Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

June 30, 2020

• Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
• United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.

July[edit]

July 6, 2020

• Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc.
• Chiafalo v. Washington
• Colorado Department of State v. Baca

July 8, 2020

• Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (Consolidated with Trump v. Pennsylvania)
• Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (Consolidated with St. James School v. Biel)

July 9, 2020

• McGirt v. Oklahoma
• Sharp v. Murphy
• Trump v. Vance
• Trump v. Mazars USA (Consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG)

July 14, 2020

• Barr v. Lee (Decided without argument)

Response to the coronavirus pandemic[edit]

Coronavirus pandemic
Select a topic from the dropdown below to learn more. Political responses overviewState reopening plansDocumenting America's Path to RecoveryElection changesChanges to vote-by-mail and absentee voting proceduresFederal responsesState responsesState executive ordersStay-at-home ordersMultistate agreementsNon-governmental reopening plansEvictions and foreclosures policiesTravel restrictionsEnacted state legislationState legislative session changesSchool closuresState court closuresInmate releasesLocal government responsesDiagnosed or quarantined politiciansBallot measure changesArguments about government responsesThe 1918 influenza pandemicPandemic Response Accountability CommitteeUnemployment filingsLawsuitsBallotpedia's polling on the coronavirus pandemicSubmit

See also: Coronavirus outbreak, 2020

Changes to argument and opinion schedule[edit]

Court releases opinions into July[edit]

By law, each Supreme Court term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court's 2019-2020 term began on October 7, 2019, and ended on October 5, 2020. Traditionally, the court finishes releasing opinions in June.^[2] However, delays from the coronavirus pandemic caused the court to release opinions into July for the first time since 1996. Before that, the last time the court issued opinions into July was in 1988.^[3]

Stephen Wermiel, writing for SCOTUSblog, noted that during Chief Justice Warren Burger's tenure (1969-1986), "it was common for terms to run [into July]. Indeed, in 1976 and in every year from 1978 through 1986, the court handed down decisions in the first week of July." During that time, the Supreme Court decided as many as 150 cases in a term.^[3] Between 2007 and 2018, SCOTUS released opinions in an average of 77 cases per year.

The court released the term's final opinions on July 9, 2020. Before that, the latest regular date for issuing opinions between 1960 and 2020 was July 7, 1986. The court continued to release opinions until July 6 in 1976 and 1983.^[3]

Senators Grassley, Leahy call for continued use of live audio[edit]

On May 29, 2020, Senate Judiciary members Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked the court to permanently provide live audio of oral arguments even after the coronavirus pandemic. The senators also requested that the court provide live video access to oral arguments. The senators cited two polls indicating widespread support for providing live audio access to the public. "Given this widespread support for access to our nation’s highest court – and the countless contributions it makes towards the civics education of the American public – there is no reason why pro-transparency measures should end when the Court returns to its normal functions," the senators wrote.^[9]

Before the coronavirus pandemic, the court released audio and transcripts of oral arguments during a given week on Fridays.

Court announces teleconferences for specific cases[edit]

On April 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hold arguments by teleconference for 13 cases from May 4 to May 13 that were previously postponed from the March and April sittings. The court's public information officer said that live audio of the arguments would be made available to the public for the first time in the court's history.^[10] Click here for more information on the cases the court decided to hear in May.

On April 28, the court announced new procedures for conducting the oral arguments via conference call. The court used a teleconferencing system to hear oral arguments. Several new procedures were announced, including rules for which Justices will ask questions based on seniority.^[11]

Court postpones April sitting[edit]

On April 3, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it was postponing the eight hours of oral argument originally scheduled during its April sitting. In a statement, the court said it would "consider rescheduling some cases from the March and April sessions before the end of the Term, if circumstances permit in light of public health and safety guidance at that time."^[12]

The court said it would continue to release opinions using the court website, hold regularly scheduled conferences, and issue order lists.^[12]

Court postpones March sitting[edit]

On March 16, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it was postponing the 11 hours of oral argument originally scheduled during its March sitting. In a press release, the court said the delay was "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19."^[5]

Court closes to the public indefinitely[edit]

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on March 12, 2020, that it was closing to the public indefinitely, beginning at 4:30 p.m. that day. The court posted on its website, "Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the Supreme Court Building will be closed to the public from 4:30 p.m. on March 12, 2020, until further notice." The closure was related to the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (abbreviated COVID-19).^[13] For more information on government responses to the virus, click here.

Responses to petitions about religious gatherings[edit]

See also: Lawsuits about state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2021

Nevada[edit]

On July 24, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by a Nevada church for permission to hold in-person services in excess of COVID-19 capacity limits imposed by Gov. Steve Sisolak (D). The church, in its emergency application to the justices, sought an injunction pending appellate review that would bar enforcement of Directive 021, which would “allow the church to host religious gatherings on the same terms as comparable secular assemblies.” At issue in the case was the church’s argument that the capacity limit violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in that it “treats at least seven categories of secular assemblies 'where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time' better than religious services." The directive, which imposed a 50% fire-code capacity limit on places of business, such as casinos, restaurants, and movie theaters, limited gatherings at places of worship to a 50-person maximum. The court, in a 5-4 split, rejected the request. The majority made no comment, a common practice when acting on emergency applications. In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the state's argument that "allowing Calvary Chapel to admit 90 worshippers presents a greater public health risk than allowing casinos to operate at 50% capacity is hard to swallow." Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined Alito's dissent. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh each wrote separate dissents.^[14]

California[edit]

South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. v. Newsom: On May 29, 2020, the United States Supreme Court rejected a challenge to California's religious gathering limits, which order attendance in churches or places of worship to a maximum of 25% or 100 attendees. The 5-4 decision was joined by Chief Justice Roberts who warned against intervening in emergencies: "Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an 'unelected federal judiciary,' which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people." Justice Kavanaugh joined the remaining three Republican-appointed justices in dissenting from the ruling, arguing that the California limits "indisputably discriminates against religion."^[15]

Noteworthy court announcements and events[edit]

Court permits resumption of federal executions[edit]

On July 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the Federal Bureau of Prisons to carry out the first federal execution in 17 years, the last having occurred in 2003.^[16][17] One year before the ruling, in July 2019, United States Attorney General William Barr directed the Bureau of Prisons to resume capital punishment and to replace the previous standard three-drug lethal injection method with a single drug, pentobarbital. The Justice Department's statement said, "Since 2010, 14 states have used pentobarbital in over 200 executions, and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly upheld the use of pentobarbital in executions as consistent with the Eighth Amendment."^[18]

On November 20, 2019, judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an injunction that prevented four federal executions from taking place as scheduled in December. Chutkan said in the ruling that the executions would prevent those convicted from challenging lethal injection in court.^[19] The Justice Department appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. On December 6, 2019, the Supreme Court declined to lift Chutkan's injunction, sending the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for consideration.^[20] In April 2020, the appellate court lifted Chutkan's injunction.^[21]

Daniel Lewis Lee, one of the four inmates originally set to be executed in December, was scheduled to receive lethal injection on July 13. That day, Judge Chutkan issued another injunction to halt the execution, ruling that lethal injection by pentobarbital constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus violates the Eighth Amendment.^[16][22] The Justice Department appealed the ruling immediately to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which upheld Chutkan's ruling.^[22] The Justice Department then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn the ruling and allow Lee's execution to proceed. In the unsigned majority opinion, the justices quoted a decision issued in 2019 and wrote, "'Last-minute stays' like that issued this morning 'should be the extreme exception, not the norm.' It is our responsibility 'to ensure that method-of-execution challenges to lawfully issued sentences are resolved fairly and expeditiously,' so that 'the question of capital punishment' can remain with 'the people and their representatives, not the courts, to resolve.' In keeping with that responsibility, we vacate the District Court’s preliminary injunction so that the plaintiffs’ executions may proceed as planned."^[23]

Lee's execution took place hours after the Supreme Court's ruling on July 14, in Terre Haute, Indiana.^[24] Two more of the four individuals originally scheduled to be executed in December 2019, Wesley Ira Purkey and Dustin Lee Honken, were executed in the following two days.^[22]

Court declines to hear cases on qualified immunity doctrine[edit]

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant nine relisted cases seeking reexamination of the qualified immunity doctrine. The doctrine was established in the U.S. Supreme Court case Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) and expanded in later cases.^[25] NPR's Nina Totenberg described the doctrine: "The qualified immunity doctrine, as applied to police, initially asks two questions: Did police use excessive force, and if they did, should they have known that their conduct was illegal because it violated a 'clearly established' prior court ruling that barred such conduct?" Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor previously expressed opposition to the doctrine.^[26]

Court allows DHS to enforce Remain in Mexico policy[edit]

On March 11, 2020, SCOTUS decided to allow the Trump administration to have some asylum-seekers wait in Mexico while U.S. officials process their claims. The ruling in Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab allowed U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel to follow the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), called the Remain in Mexico policy, while challenges to the policy worked through the lower courts. The order granting a temporary stay of the injunction said that stay would last until the case came before SCOTUS for a final decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied the government’s request for a stay.^[27]

Court allows DHS to enforce public charge rule[edit]

On January 27, 2020, SCOTUS voted 5-4 to allow the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to begin enforcing a rule that authorizes the federal government to deny immigrants a visa or a green card if they rely on government assistance.^[28]

On August 14, 2019, DHS issued the final rule detailing how federal agencies determine the inadmissibility of immigrants likely to become public charges (e.g. dependent on government assistance).^[29] Five federal judges later issued injunctions blocking the rule from taking effect. Appellate courts lifted three of the injunctions in December 2019, but a nationwide injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and a statewide injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois remained in effect.^[30] On January 13, 2020, DHS requested that the U.S. Supreme Court stay the nationwide injunction issued by Judge George B. Daniels of the Southern District of New York.^[31]

SCOTUS granted the request for a stay. In a concurring opinion filed with the order, Gorsuch urged lower courts to curtail the practice of issuing nationwide injunctions, arguing in part that the broad orders impact individuals who are not parties to the cases at hand.^[28] The decision allows the rule to take effect nationwide pending a final decision in State of New York et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al. The statewide injunction blocking the rule in Illinois remained in effect as of January 28, 2020.^[32]

Court agrees to hear case on Louisiana abortion law[edit]

See also: Abortion regulations by state

On October 4, 2019, SCOTUS announced that it would hear June Medical Services LLC v. Russo during the 2019-2020 term. The case which involved a challenge to a Louisiana law that established requirements for doctors performing abortions to possess admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The date for oral argument was not announced. On February 7, 2019, the Court voted 5-4 to stay enforcement of the Louisiana law, which was enacted in 2014.^[33]

Decision to temporarily allow asylum rule implementation[edit]

See also: Federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020

On September 11, 2019, SCOTUS allowed a Trump administration rule to temporarily take effect while legal challenges to the rule were ongoing. The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had previously blocked the rule from being implemented in Arizona and California. The Trump administration had asked SCOTUS to allow the government to implement the rule nationwide.^[34]

The rule, issued on July 16, 2019, established limitations on migrants who had passed through another country that was not their country of citizenship, nationality, or lawful residence, prohibiting them from seeking asylum at the southern border of the United States.^[35]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, publicly dissented. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that the rule "topples decades of settled asylum practices."^[36] According to SCOTUSblog, the justices did not "indicate whether all seven of the justices who did not publicly dissent had voted in favor of the stay; all we know is that there were at least five votes – the number required for a stay – for the government."^[34]

Term data[edit]

List of cases[edit]

The 2019-2020 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began on October 7, 2019. The following table provides data on the decisions the court delivered during the 2019-2020 term.

2019-2020 SCOTUS term data
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote	Court of origination
Rotkiske v. Klemm	Clarence Thomas	affirmed	8-1	3rd Circuit
Peter v. NantKwest	Sonia Sotomayor	affirmed	9-0	Federal Circuit
Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	affirmed	9-0	6th Circuit
Retirement Plan Committee of IBM v. Jander	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	NA	2nd Circuit
McKinney v. Arizona	Brett Kavanaugh	affirmed	5-4	Arizona Supreme Court
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation	Neil Gorsuch	vacated and remanded	9-0	10th Circuit
Hernandez v. Mesa	Samuel Alito	affirmed	5-4	5th Circuit
Monasky v. Taglieri	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	affirmed	9-0	6th Circuit
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma	Samuel Alito	affirmed	9-0	9th Circuit
Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S.	Stephen Breyer	vacated and remanded	9-0	5th Circuit
Shular v. United States	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	affirmed	9-0	11th Circuit
Kansas v. Garcia	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	5-4	Kansas Supreme Court
Mathena v. Malvo	NA	Dismissed	NA	4th Circuit
Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media	Neil Gorsuch	vacated and remanded	9-0	9th Circuit
Allen v. Cooper	Elena Kagan	affirmed	9-0	4th Circuit
Kahler v. Kansas	Elena Kagan	affirmed	6-3	Kansas Supreme Court
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr	Stephen Breyer	vacated and remanded	7-2	5th Circuit
Davis v. United States	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	NA	5th Circuit
CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd.	Sonia Sotomayor	affirmed	7-2	3rd Circuit
Kansas v. Glover	Clarence Thomas	reversed and remanded	8-1	Kansas Supreme Court
Babb v. Wilkie	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	8-1	11th Circuit
Ramos v. Louisiana	Neil Gorsuch	reversed	6-3	Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian	John Roberts	affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded	7-2	Montana Supreme Court
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	vacated and remanded	7-2	Federal Circuit
Barton v. Barr	Brett Kavanaugh	affirmed	5-4	11th Circuit
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund	Stephen Breyer	vacated and remanded	6-3	9th Circuit
Romag Fasteners v. Fossil	Neil Gorsuch	vacated and remanded	9-0	Federal Circuit
Maine Community Health Options v. United States	Sonia Sotomayor	reversed and remanded	8-1	Federal Circuit
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc.	John Roberts	affirmed	5-4	11th Circuit
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	6-3	2nd Circuit
Kelly v. United States	Elena Kagan	reversed and remanded	9-0	3rd Circuit
United States v. Sineneng-Smith	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	vacated and remanded	9-0	9th Circuit
Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashion Group	Sonia Sotomayor	reversed and remanded	9-0	2nd Circuit
Opati v. Republic of Sudan	Neil Gorsuch	vacated and remanded	8-0	D.C. Circuit
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment LLC (Consolidated with Aurelius Investment v. Puerto Rico, Official Committee of Debtors v. Aurelius Investment, United States v. Aurelius Investment, and UTIER v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico)	Stephen Breyer	reversed and remanded	9-0	1st Circuit
Nasrallah v. Barr	Brett Kavanaugh	reversed	7-2	11th Circuit
Banister v. Davis	Elena Kagan	reversed and remanded	7-2	5th Circuit
Thole v. U.S. Bank	Brett Kavanaugh	affirmed	5-4	8th Circuit
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC	Clarence Thomas	reversed and remanded	9-0	11th Circuit
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez	Elena Kagan	affirmed	9-0	10th Circuit
Thompson v. Hebdon	Per curiam	vacated and remanded	NA	9th Circuit
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano	Per curiam	granted, vacated, and remanded	NA	Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee	Per curiam	application for stay granted	5-4	7th Circuit
United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association	Clarence Thomas	reversed and remanded	7-2	4th Circuit
Andrus v. Texas	Per curiam	vacated, and remanded	6-3	Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (Consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC)	Neil Gorsuch	reversed and remanded	6-3	11th Circuit
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (Consolidated with Trump v. NAACP and Wolf v. Vidal)	John Roberts	vacated in part and reversed in part	5-4	9th Circuit
Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission	Sonia Sotomayor	vacated and remanded	8-1	9th Circuit
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	7-2	9th Circuit
USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International	Brett Kavanaugh	reversed	5-3	2nd Circuit
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo (Consolidated with Russo v. June Medical Services)	Stephen Breyer	reversed	5-4	5th Circuit
Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau	John Roberts	vacated and remanded	5-4	9th Circuit
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue	John Roberts	reversed and remanded	5-4	Montana Supreme Court
United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	affirmed	8-1	4th Circuit
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc.	Brett Kavanaugh	affirmed	6-3	4th Circuit
Chiafalo v. Washington	Elena Kagan	affirmed	9-0	Washington Supreme Court
Colorado Department of State v. Baca	Per curiam	reversed	8-0	10th Circuit
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (Consolidated with Trump v. Pennsylvania)	Clarence Thomas	reversed and remanded	7-2	3rd Circuit
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (Consolidated with St. James School v. Biel)	Samuel Alito	reversed and remanded	7-2	9th Circuit
McGirt v. Oklahoma	Neil Gorsuch	reversed	5-4	Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Sharp v. Murphy	Per curiam	affirmed	NA	10th Circuit
Trump v. Vance	John Roberts	affirmed and remanded	7-2	2nd Circuit
Trump v. Mazars USA (Consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG)	John Roberts	vacated and remanded	7-2	D.C. Circuit
Barr v. Lee	Per curiam	application for a stay granted	5-4	D.C. Circuit

Precedent alteration[edit]

The Washington University in St. Louis Law School (WashU Law) maintains a database of Supreme Court cases. In its database, a case is considered to have formally altered existing Court precedent if at least one of the following applies to the case:^[37]

• The majority opinion of the Court explicitly references a previous case and overturns its precedent;
• A dissent contains persuasive evidence that the opinion of the Court, despite not mentioning overturned precedent, has overruled a previous precedent set by the Court;
• If the Court, in a later decision, references an earlier decision that the Court made, and states that said earlier decision was a case overturning precedent, that earlier case will be marked as altering precedent;
• Or, the majority opinion mentions precedent and states that it "disapproved" of the decision, or that the precedent is "no longer good law."

The following table details for each term of The Roberts Court how many and which cases were found to formally alter precedent:^[38]

SCOTUS precedent alteration during the Roberts Court
Court term	# of cases altering precedent	% of cases altering precedent	List of cases altering precedent
2023-2024	1 of 62	1.6%	Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
2022-2023	1 of 62	1.6%	Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard
2021-2022	3 of 69	4.3%	Shinn v. Ramirez / Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization / Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
2020-2021	1 of 74	1.4%	Edwards v. Vannoy
2019-2020	1 of 74	1.4%	Ramos v. Louisiana
2018-2019	4 of 78	5.1%	Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania / Herrera v. Wyoming / Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt / Rucho v. Common Cause
2017-2018	3 of 79	3.8%	Trump v. Hawaii / South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. / Janus v. AFSCME
2016-2017	0 of 81	0.0%	N/A
2015-2016	1 of 84	1.2%	Hurst v. Florida
2014-2015	2 of 79	2.5%	Johnson v. United States / Obergefell v. Hodges
2013-2014	0 of 75	0.0%	N/A
2012-2013	1 of 79	1.3%	Allen v. United States
2011-2012	0 of 80	0.0%	N/A
2010-2011	1 of 86	1.2%	Bond v. United States
2009-2010	2 of 94	2.1%	McDonald v. Chicago / Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
2008-2009	2 of 83	2.4%	Jesse Jay Montejo v. Louisiana / Cordell Pearson, et al. v. Afton Callahan
2007-2008	0 of 74	0.0%	N/A
2006-2007	5 of 75	6.7%	Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Leroy Carhart, et al. / Bell Atlantic Corporation, et al. v. William Twombly, et al. / Keith Bowles v. Harry Russell, Warden / Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 / Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.
2005-2006	2 of 87	2.3%	Illinois Tool Works Inc., et al. v. Independent Ink, Inc. / Central Virginia Community College, et al. v. Bernard Katz

Note that the WashU Law database does not state how many precedents were overturned with each decision. As such, a case listed as altering a precedent may have affected multiple precedents.

Additionally, if the Court only distinguished a precedent, it was not classified as a precedent-altering case. Distinguishing a precedent involves clarifying a previous precedent rather than changing it.^[37]

Justice alignment[edit]

The following justice alignment table shows justice agreement rates for non-unanimous rulings during the 2019-2020 term. The data does not include agreements in part.

• The highest agreement rate was 89 percent, which applied to the following pairings:
  • Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh
  • Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer
• Chief Justice John Roberts had the highest average agreement rate with each of the other eight justices at 65 percent
• The lowest agreement rate was 14 percent, which applied to the following pairing:
  • Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor
• Justice Clarence Thomas had the lowest average agreement rate with each of the other eight justices at 46 percent

SCOTUS case reversal rates[edit]

See also: SCOTUS case reversal rates (2007 - Present)

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued opinions in 69 cases during its October 2019 term. It reversed 46 lower court decisions (66.7%) and affirmed 23. This term's reversal rate was 3.4 percentage points lower than the average rate of reversal since 2007 (70.1%). Ten of the cases originated in the 9th Circuit, the most from any circuit (excluding state courts). The 9th Circuit had nine cases reversed.^[39]

SCOTUS decisions by circuit, 2019
Court	Decided	Affirmed	Reversed	Percent Reversed
First Circuit	1	0	1	100.0%
Second Circuit	8	2	6	75.0%
Third Circuit	4	2	2	50.0%
Fourth Circuit	4	3	1	25.0%
Fifth Circuit	7	1	6	85.7%
Sixth Circuit	3	3	0	0%
Seventh Circuit	1	0	1	100.0%
Eighth Circuit	1	1	0	0%
Ninth Circuit	10	1	9	90.0%
Tenth Circuit	4	2	2	58.3%
Eleventh Circuit	7	3	4	57.1%
D.C. Circuit	4	1	3	62.8%
Federal Circuit	4	1	3	75.0%
Armed Forces	0	0	0	0%
State Court	11	3	8	72.7%
U.S. District Court	0	0	0	0%
Original Jurisdiction	0	N/A	N/A	N/A
Total	69	23	46	66.7%
Note: This table is based on SCOTUSblog's Circuit Scorecard for the 2019 term. They note: "For the Circuit Scorecards only, we treat certain consolidated cases as separate decisions rather than as one. For consolidated cases that stemmed from different lower court decisions, we counted the cases separately on this table to most accurately reflect the Supreme Court’s treatment of the precedents below. For cases that were consolidated in the court below, we count the Supreme Court’s decision only once." Source: SCOTUSblog, "Circuit scorecard," accessed July 14, 2020

Between the 2007 and 2019 terms, SCOTUS released opinions in 993 cases. Of those, it reversed a lower court decision 696 times (70.1%) while affirming a lower court decision 289 times (29%). In that time period, SCOTUS decided more cases originating from the 9th Circuit (191) than from any other circuit. The next-most was the 2nd Circuit, which had 73 decisions. During that span, SCOTUS overturned a greater number of cases originating from the 9th Circuit (149), but it overturned a higher percentage of cases originating in the 6th Circuit (79.7%, or 55 of 69 cases).

For more historical term data, see this article.

Opinion authorship[edit]

The chart below indicates the number and types of opinions written by each justice during the 2019 term. Justice Roberts and Gorsuch wrote the most opinions with seven each. Justices Thomas, Breyer, and Sotomayor wrote the least, with five opinions each.

5-4 decisions[edit]

In this term, the court issued 13 5-4 or 5-3 decisions, 21% of the total opinions released. Those decisions were made by four different configurations of justices. Across these decisions, 69% had a majority made up of all five conservative justices (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh). The rest had a majority made up of the four liberal justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) and one conservative justice.^[40]

5-4 opinions over time
Term	Number of 5-4 opinions	Percent of total opinions	Number of different alignments
19	13	21%	4
18	20	28%	10
17	19	26%	5
16	7	10%	3
15	4	5%	2
14	19	26%	7
13	10	14%	7
12	23	29%	7
11	15	20%	7
10	16	20%	4
09	16	19%	7
08	23	29%	7
07	12	17%	6
06	24	33%	6
05	11	12%	7
Average	15	21%	6

Active justices[edit]

See also: Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court consists of nine justices.

Judge		Born	Home	Appointed by	Active	Preceeded	Law school
	Associate justice  Samuel Alito	April 1, 1950	Trenton, N.J.	W. Bush	January 31, 2006 - Present	Sandra Day O'Connor	Yale Law School, 1975
	Chief justice  John Roberts	January 27, 1955	Buffalo, N.Y.	W. Bush	September 29, 2005 - Present	William Rehnquist	Harvard Law, 1979
	Associate justice  Clarence Thomas	June 23, 1948	Savannah, Ga.	H.W. Bush	July 1, 1991 - Present	Thurgood Marshall	Yale Law School, 1974
	Associate justice  Stephen Breyer	August 15, 1938	San Francisco, Calif.	Clinton	August 3, 1994 - Present	Harry Blackmun	Harvard Law School, 1964
	Associate justice  Ruth Bader Ginsburg	March 15, 1933	New York, N.Y.	Clinton	August 5, 1993 - Present	Byron White	Columbia Law School, 1959
	Associate justice  Elena Kagan	April 28, 1960	New York, N.Y.	Obama	August 7, 2010 - Present	John Paul Stevens	Harvard Law School, J.D., 1986
	Associate justice  Sonia Sotomayor	June 25, 1954	New York, N.Y.	Obama	August 6, 2009 - Present	David Souter	Yale Law School, 1979
	Associate justice  Neil Gorsuch	August 29, 1967	Denver, Colo.	Trump	April 10, 2017 - Present	Antonin Scalia	Harvard Law School, 1991
	Associate justice  Brett Kavanaugh	February 12, 1965	Washington, D.C.	Trump	October 6, 2018 - Present	Anthony Kennedy	Yale Law School, 1990

Case history[edit]

2018-2019 term[edit]

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019

In the 2018-2019 term, SCOTUS agreed to consider 75 cases. The court heard oral argument in 72 cases and decided three cases without argument. Click here for more information.

2017-2018 term[edit]

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018

In the 2017-2018 term, SCOTUS agreed to hear 71 cases. Ultimately, the justices heard argument in 69 of those cases. Click here for more information.

2016-2017 term[edit]

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017

In the 2016-2017 term, SCOTUS agreed to hear 71 cases. Click here for more information.

The court delivered 61 opinions.

• Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy, wrote the most opinions—eight each.
• Justices Alito, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Thomas each wrote seven opinions.
• Justice Gorsuch wrote one opinion.

The court delivered eight per curiam opinions.

See also[edit]

• 

  History of the Supreme Court

• 

  Supreme Court of the United States

• 

  Read about last year's term

External links[edit]

• Supreme Court of the United States

Footnotes[edit]

v • e Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
Active justices	Chief justice: Roberts Associate justices: Alito • Barrett • Gorsuch • Jackson • Kagan • Kavanaugh • Sotomayor • Thomas
Senior justices	Breyer • Kennedy • Souter
Former chief justices	Burger • Chase • Ellsworth • Fuller • Hughes • Jay • Marshall • Rehnquist • Rutledge • Stone • Taft • Taney • Vinson • Waite • Warren • White
Former associate justices	O'Connor • Baldwin • Barbour • Black • Blackmun • Blair • Blatchford • Bradley • Brandeis • Brennan • Brewer • Brown • Burton • Butler • Byrnes • Campbell • Cardozo • Catron • Chase • Clark • Clarke • Clifford • Curtis • Cushing • Daniel • Davis • Day • Douglas • Duvall • Field • Fortas • Frankfurter • Ginsburg • Goldberg • Gray • Grier • Harlan I • Harlan II • Holmes • Hunt • Iredell • H. Jackson • R. Jackson • T. Johnson • W. Johnson, Jr. • J. Lamar • L. Lamar • Livingston • Lurton • Marshall • Matthews • McKenna • McKinley • McLean • McReynolds • Miller • Minton • Moody • Moore • Murphy • Nelson • Paterson • Peckham • Pitney • Powell • Reed • Roberts • W. Rutledge • Sanford • Scalia • Shiras • Stevens • Stewart • Story • Strong • Sutherland • Swayne • Thompson • Todd • Trimble • Van Devanter • Washington • Wayne • B. White • Whittaker • Wilson • Woodbury • Woods