Supreme Court Cases, October Term 2021-2022

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 • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett

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 4, 2021. 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]

On February 25, 2022, President Joe Biden (D) announced he would nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson to the United States Supreme Court to fill the vacancy caused by the departure of Justice Stephen Breyer.^[3] She was confirmed by the Senate in a 53-47 vote on April 7, 2022.^[4] Justice Breyer retired on June 30, 2022, and Justice Jackson took her oath of office on the same day.^[5][6] Click here to read more.

See the sections below for additional information on the October 2021 term of the Supreme Court of the United States.

1. Cases by circuit: This section lists the cases being heard by 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 date of oral argument.
3. Cases by date of opinion: This section lists the cases by the date the court released an opinion.
4. Noteworthy court announcements: This section provides details on noteworthy court announcements and emergency appeals.
5. 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.
6. Case history: This section provides information on previous SCOTUS terms.

The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.^[7] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.^[8]

The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.

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.^[9]

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."^[9][10]

Circuits[edit]

Where are the cases coming from?[edit]

List of cases by court of origination - 2021-2022 term
Court	Number of cases
United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit	5
United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit	4
United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit	1
United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit	4
United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	10
United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit	7
United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit	4
United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit	3
United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	13
United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit	1
United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit	5
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit	2
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit	1
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces	0
State and district courts	7
Original jurisdiction	1
Total	68
Source: Supreme Court of the United States, "Granted & Noted List, October Term 2021," accessed April 6, 2021

Geographic boundaries[edit]

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

Cases by sitting[edit]

SCOTUS' term is divided into sittings, when the justices hear cases.^[11]

• Click here for the list of cases argued during the court's October sitting.

  October sitting[edit]

  October 4, 2021

  • Mississippi v. Tennessee
  • Wooden v. United States

  October 5, 2021

  • Brown v. Davenport
  • Hemphill v. New York

  October 6, 2021

  • United States v. Zubaydah

  October 12, 2021

  • Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C.
  • Thompson v. Clark

  October 13, 2021

  • United States v. Tsarnaev
  • Babcock v. Kijakazi

• Click here for the list of cases argued during the court's November sitting.

  November sitting[edit]

  November 1, 2021

  • Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson
  • United States v. Texas

  November 2, 2021

  • Houston Community College System v. Wilson
  • Badgerow v. Walters

  November 3, 2021

  • New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

  November 8, 2021

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga
  • Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP

  November 9, 2021

  • United States v. Vaello-Madero
  • Ramirez v. Collier

  November 10, 2021

  • City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas, Inc.

• Click here for the list of cases argued during the court's December sitting.

  December sitting[edit]

  November 29, 2021

  • Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation

  November 30, 2021

  • Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C.
  • American Hospital Association v. Becerra

  December 1, 2021

  • Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

  December 6, 2021

  • Patel v. Garland
  • Hughes v. Northwestern University

  December 7, 2021

  • United States v. Taylor

  December 8, 2021

  • Carson v. Makin
  • Shinn v. Ramirez

• Click here for the list of cases argued during the court's January sitting.

  January sitting[edit]

  January 7, 2022

  • National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor
  • Biden v. Missouri

  January 10, 2022

  • Gallardo v. Marstiller

  January 11, 2022

  • Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
  • Garland v. Gonzalez

  January 12, 2022

  • Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  January 18, 2022

  • Shurtleff v. City of Boston
  • Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation

  January 19, 2022

  • Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate
  • Concepcion v. United States

• Click here for the list of cases argued during the court's February sitting.

  February sitting[edit]

  February 22, 2022

  • Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
  • Denezpi v. United States

  February 23, 2022

  • Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California

  February 28, 2022

  • West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (Consolidated with North American Coal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Westmoreland Mining Holdings v. Environmental Protection Agency, and North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency)

  March 1, 2022

  • Ruan v. United States (Consolidated with Kahn v. United States)
  • Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita, Inc.

  March 2, 2022

  • Egbert v. Boule

• Click here for the list of cases argued during the court's March sitting.

  March sitting[edit]

  March 21, 2022

  • Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.
  • Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

  March 22, 2022

  • Golan v. Saada

  March 23, 2022

  • ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. (Consolidated with AlixPartners, LLC v. Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States)

  March 28, 2022

  • LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
  • Southwest Airlines v. Saxon

  March 29, 2022

  • Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety

  March 30, 2022

  • Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

• Click here for the list of cases argued during the court's April sitting.

  April sitting[edit]

  April 18, 2022

  • United States v. Washington
  • Siegel v. Fitzgerald

  April 19, 2022

  • George v. McDonough
  • Kemp v. United States

  April 20, 2022

  • Vega v. Tekoh

  April 25, 2022

  • Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
  • Nance v. Ward

  April 26, 2022

  • Biden v. Texas
  • Shoop v. Twyford

  April 27, 2022

  • Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

Cases removed from argument calendar[edit]

• American Medical Association v. Cochran (Consolidated with Oregon v. Cochran and Cochran v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore)
• Department of Homeland Security v. New York
• Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC
• Pivotal Software, Inc. v. Tran
• CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe

Cases by date of opinion[edit]

October[edit]

October 18, 2021

• Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna (Decided without argument)
• City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma v. Bond (Decided without argument)

November[edit]

November 22, 2021

• Mississippi v. Tennessee

December[edit]

December 10, 2021

• Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson
• United States v. Texas

January[edit]

January 13, 2022

• Babcock v. Kijakazi
• National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor
• Biden v. Missouri

January 20, 2022

• Hemphill v. New York

January 24, 2022

• Hughes v. Northwestern University

February[edit]

February 24, 2022

• Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP

March[edit]

March 3, 2022

• United States v. Zubaydah
• Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C.

March 4, 2022

• Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga
• United States v. Tsarnaev

March 7, 2022

• Wooden v. United States

March 23, 2022

• Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (Decided without argument)

March 24, 2022

• Houston Community College System v. Wilson
• Ramirez v. Collier

March 31, 2022

• Badgerow v. Walters

April[edit]

April 4, 2022

• Thompson v. Clark

April 21, 2022

• City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas, Inc.
• Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
• Brown v. Davenport
• United States v. Vaello-Madero
• Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

April 28, 2022

• LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
• Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C.

May[edit]

May 2, 2022

• Shurtleff v. City of Boston

May 16, 2022

• Patel v. Garland
• Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate

May 23, 2022

• Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.
• Shinn v. Ramirez

June[edit]

June 6, 2022

• Siegel v. Fitzgerald
• Southwest Airlines v. Saxon
• Gallardo v. Marstiller

June 8, 2022

• Egbert v. Boule

June 13, 2022

• Denezpi v. United States
• Garland v. Gonzalez
• Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
• Kemp v. United States
• ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.

June 15, 2022

• Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California
• George v. McDonough
• American Hospital Association v. Becerra
• Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
• Golan v. Saada
• Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

June 21, 2022

• Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita, Inc.
• United States v. Taylor
• United States v. Washington
• Shoop v. Twyford
• Carson v. Makin

June 23, 2022

• Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
• Nance v. Ward
• Vega v. Tekoh
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

June 24, 2022

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
• Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation

June 27, 2022

• Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
• Concepcion v. United States
• Ruan v. United States

June 29, 2022

• Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
• Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety

June 30, 2022

• West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (Consolidated with North American Coal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Westmoreland Mining Holdings v. Environmental Protection Agency, and North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency)
• Biden v. Texas

Noteworthy court announcements[edit]

• Click here for the court's noteworthy announcements in May and June 2022.

  Court reinstates Louisiana voting map[edit]

  • June 28, 2022: In the case Ardoin v. Robinson, concerning whether the Louisiana State Legislature must draw new congressional voting maps in order to create two majority-minority districts based on race as the sole non-negotiable variable, the court blocked a federal district court's preliminary injunctions that required the new maps. The district court found that the existing maps likely violate the Voting Rights Act. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented from the treatment of the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment and the granting of certiorari before judgment, and would deny the application for a stay.^[12]

  Court allows counting of undated Pennsylvania ballots[edit]

  • June 9, 2022: The court denied an emergency application to stay, or put on hold, the decision of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed Pennsylvania elections officials to count undated mail-in ballots. The court vacated the stay that Justice Samuel Alito granted on May 31 before referring the application to the full court. Justice Alito dissented from the court's June 9 order and was joined in his dissent by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.^[13]
  • May 31, 2022: In an order signed by Justice Samuel Alito, the court stayed a 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Ritter v. Migliori. The ruling was put on hold pending SCOTUS' further review.^[14] The case was brought by David Ritter, a 2021 Republican candidate for Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, and concerned a Pennsylvania law requiring voters to sign and date their mail-in ballot. Ritter petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review after the 3rd Circuit ordered Lehigh County to count over 250 undated ballots. The counting of the ballots would "likely eras[e] Ritter's 71-vote lead," according to the emergency application for a stay.^[15]

• Click here for the court's noteworthy announcements in March 2022.

  Justice Thomas released from hospital[edit]

  • March 25, 2022: The court announced Justice Clarence Thomas was released from the hospital after his admission on March 20, 2022, for an infection.^[16][17] During his hospitalization, Thomas missed oral arguments in four cases. The court reported he would take part in the discussion and consideration of any cases missed by reviewing briefs, transcripts, and audio of the oral arguments.^[17]

  Court overturns Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision on state redistricting maps[edit]

  • March 23, 2022: In an unsigned per curiam opinion, the court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision adopting Gov. Tony Evers' state house and senate redistricting maps and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the Wisconsin Supreme Court erred in its analysis of U.S. Supreme Court precedents on how the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause should be applied in race-based districting cases.^[18] In its opinion, the court wrote:^[18]

  “

  The question that our [Voting Rights Act of 1965] precedents ask and the court failed to answer is whether a race-neutral alternative that did not add a seventh majority-black district would deny black voters equal political opportunity. Answering that question requires an “‘“intensely local appraisal”’ of the challenged district.” LULAC, 548 U. S., at 437. When the Wisconsin Supreme Court endeavored to undertake a full strict-scrutiny analysis, it did not do so properly under our precedents, and its judgment cannot stand.[19]

  ”

  
  

  Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote an opinion dissenting from the court's judgment, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote:^[18]

  “	The Court’s action today is unprecedented. In an emergency posture, the Court summarily overturns a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision resolving a conflict over the State’s redistricting, a decision rendered after a 5-month process involving all interested stakeholders. Despite the fact that summary reversals are generally reserved for decisions in violation of settled law, the Court today faults the State Supreme Court for its failure to comply with an obligation that, under existing precedent, is hazy at best. ... This Court’s intervention today is not only extraordinary but also unnecessary. The Wisconsin Supreme Court rightly preserved the possibility that an appropriate plaintiff could bring an equal protection or [Voting Rights Act] challenge in the proper forum. 2022 WI 14, ¶41, n. 24. I would allow that process to unfold, rather than further complicating these proceedings with legal confusion through a summary reversal. I respectfully dissent.[19]	”
  —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

• Click here for the court's noteworthy announcements in February 2022.

  Court reinstates Alabama voting map[edit]

  • February 7, 2022: In a 5-4 order, SCOTUS allowed a proposed Alabama congressional redistricting map to be implemented while under challenge in federal court for illegal racial gerrymandering in the case Merrill v. Milligan. On January 24, 2022, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ordered Alabama to draw a new map, holding that the Milligan plaintiffs were substantially likely to establish that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, prohibiting racial discrimination in voting practices and procedures.^[20] On January 27, the three-judge panel denied the state's request to put a hold on the order while the ruling was appealed. Alabama then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to pause the district court's order while the legal challenge was in progress. The application for a stay or injunctive relief was submitted to the circuit justice Justice Clarence Thomas, who in turn referred the application to the full court for consideration. Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion in response to Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Justice Samuel Alito.^{[21][22][23][24]}

• Click here for the court's noteworthy announcements in January 2022.

  Justice Stephen Breyer to retire at end of term[edit]

  • January 27, 2022: Justice Stephen Breyer informed President Joe Biden (D) of his upcoming retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court, effective at the end of the 2021-2022 term, provided that his successor has been nominated and confirmed. Breyer and Biden spoke at the White House following the official announcement. President Biden stated he intended to nominate a Black woman to the court. If confirmed, the nominee would be the first Black woman to serve on the court. Biden also stated that he intended to announce his nominee in February 2022.^[25][26][27]

  • January 26, 2022: Multiple media outlets, including SCOTUSblog, the Wall Street Journal, and NBC News, reported that Justice Stephen Breyer plans to retire from the court at the end of the current term.^[28][29][30] As of January 26, Breyer had not publicly announced his plans.

  Breyer was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1994 to fill the seat vacated by Harry Blackmun. He was confirmed on July 29, 1994. Prior to his appointment to the supreme court, Breyer served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, to which he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter (D) in 1980.^[31]

  Court denies stay of execution in case of Oklahoma inmate[edit]

  • January 26, 2022: The court denied an application for a stay of execution for Donald Grant, an Oklahoma inmate convicted in the shooting deaths of two hotel workers. The full court reviewed the application after it was referred to the court by Justice Neil Gorsuch. After the court's denial of the stay, Grant's execution scheduled for January 27 was clear to proceed.^[32][33]

  Court denies request to block release of President Trump's documents to Jan. 6 congressional select committee[edit]

  • January 19, 2022: The court denied former President Donald Trump's (R) request to halt the release of presidential records sought by the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. The committee requested the records from the National Archives in August 2021. President Trump claimed executive privilege over three sets of documents, including diaries, call logs, schedules, staff notes, draft talking points for the press secretary, speech drafts, and a draft executive order. President Joe Biden (D) did not assert executive privilege over the documents. Trump sought to block the disclosure in U.S. district court on October 18, 2021, and the court denied the request. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined the request, holding that Trump could not assert executive privilege over the documents even if he were the sitting president. In the U.S. Supreme Court's order, Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have granted the request to block disclosure. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a statement on the court's decision. Click here to read the order and Justice Kavanaugh's statement.^[34][35]

  Court schedules oral arguments in COVID vaccine-related emergency appeals[edit]

  • January 13, 2022: The court issued per curiam opinions on both of the Biden administration's COVID-19-related vaccine policies that came to the court on emergency appeals on December 22. The court blocked enforcement of one mandate and allowed enforcement of the other while litigation continues in lower courts. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor (consolidated with Ohio v. Department of Labor), the court blocked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) COVID-19 vaccination-or-test mandate for business with more than 100 employees. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented from the order. In the unsigned opinion, the court wrote, in part:^[36]

  “

  Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate. Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. ... OSHA’s COVID–19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard, 86 Fed. Reg. 61402, is stayed pending disposition of the applicants’ petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and disposition of the applicants’ petitions for writs of certiorari, if such writs are timely sought. Should the petitions for writs of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.[19]

  ”

  In Biden v. Missouri (consolidated with Becerra v. Louisiana), the court allowed the administration's mandate requiring health care employees who work in Medicare and Medicaid-funded programs to go into effect. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett dissented. In its decision, the court wrote, in part:^[37]

  “

  Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose conditions on the receipt of Medicaid and Medicare funds that “the Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services.” 42 U. S. C. §1395x(e)(9).* COVID–19 is a highly contagious, dangerous, and—especially for Medicare and Medicaid patients—deadly disease. The Secretary of Health and Human Services determined that a COVID–19 vaccine mandate will substantially reduce the likelihood that healthcare workers will contract the virus and transmit it to their patients. 86 Fed. Reg. 61557–61558. He accordingly concluded that a vaccine mandate is “necessary to promote and protect patient health and safety” in the face of the ongoing pandemic. Id., at 61613. ... We accordingly conclude that the Secretary did not exceed his statutory authority in requiring that, in order to remain eligible for Medicare and Medicaid dollars, the facilities covered by the interim rule must ensure that their employees be vaccinated against COVID–19.[19]

  ”

  • January 7, 2022: The court announced that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would participate in the arguments remotely from her chambers, and two attorneys were scheduled to argue by telephone.^[38]

  • December 30, 2021: SCOTUS granted the petitioners' request to divide oral arguments in all four cases, after initially consolidating the cases.^[39]

  • December 22, 2021: SCOTUS deferred a decision on applications for relief in emergency appeals related to two Biden administration COVID-19 vaccine policies and scheduled oral arguments in the cases for January 7, 2022. The question in both instances was whether the government can enforce the vaccine policies while litigation challenging them continues in the lower courts. One line of appeals concerned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard. This vaccine-or-test mandate directed businesses with more than 100 employees to require their employees to be vaccinated or engage in mask-wearing and weekly COVID testing in the workplace. After the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reinstated the mandate nationwide, several parties applied to the Supreme Court to block the 6th Circuit's ruling.^[40] The court deferred judgment on the appeals and scheduled oral arguments in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Department of Labor and Ohio v. Department of Labor, which the court consolidated for one hour of oral argument.^[41]

  In the other line of appeals, the Biden administration petitioned the court to allow it to enforce a rule that requires health care workers who participate in federal Medicare and Medicaid programs to be fully vaccinated. Lower court rulings blocked the mandate in approximately half of the states.^[40] The court also deferred a decision on these appeals and scheduled arguments on January 7 in Biden v. Missouri and Becerra v. Louisiana, which were consolidated for one hour of oral argument.^[42]

• Click here for the court's noteworthy announcements in December 2021.

  Court declines requests to block enforcement of New York vaccine mandate[edit]

  • December 13, 2021: SCOTUS denied a request by health care workers in New York to halt a state vaccine mandate, requiring that they be vaccinated against COVID-19 and not allowing religious exemptions, which they challenged based on their religious beliefs. The emergency request was submitted to the circuit justice, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and referred to the full court for consideration. Justice Clarence Thomas would have granted the application for injunctive relief. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, filed a dissent from the denial. In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:^[43][44]

  “

  New York recently issued a regulation requiring healthcare workers to receive a COVID–19 vaccine. Those who cite medical reasons are exempt. But no comparable exemption exists for individuals whose sincere religious beliefs prevent them from taking one of the currently available vaccines. It seems New York is one of just three States to have a scheme like this. And it seems originally even New York was headed in a different direction. When it announced the mandate, the then-Governor promised a religious exemption. Weeks later, the State backtracked. It offered no scientific evidence, or even a written explanation, for the decision. But a new Governor who assumed office around the same time spoke about it. The new Governor announced that the decision to eliminate the exemption was “intentiona[l]” and justified because no “organized religion” sought it and individuals who did were not “listening to God and what God wants.” Now, thousands of New York healthcare workers face the loss of their jobs and eligibility for unemployment benefits. Twenty of them have filed suit arguing that the State’s conduct violates the First Amendment and asking us to enjoin the enforcement of the mandate against them until this Court can decide their petition for certiorari. Respectfully, I believe they deserve that relief.[19]

  ”

  Court announces in-person arguments for January, February sittings[edit]

  • December 6, 2021: SCOTUS announced that it would hear oral arguments in person during its January and February sittings, following the same protocol it had observed during the October, November, and December sittings. The court will not be open to the public, in accordance with its current precautions in response to COVID-19. Argument audio will be streamed live to the public, as was the case during the 2020-2021 term. The audio files and argument transcripts for cases will be posted on the Court’s website following oral argument each day.^[45]

  Court denies review in case concerning qualified immunity[edit]

  • December 6, 2021: SCOTUS denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case Taylor v. City of Shreveport, originating from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The case concerned the prior legal precedents necessary for police officers to claim qualified immunity in lawsuits where they are accused of using excessive force.^[46][47] Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a statement respecting the denial of certiorari. In her statement, Justice Sotomayor wrote:^[48]

  “

  While this case does not meet our traditional criteria for certiorari, I write to note that the Fifth Circuit’s reversal of the District Court’s detailed order denying qualified immunity appears highly questionable for the reasons set forth by Judge Higginson’s thorough dissenting opinion. 998 F. 3d 165, 185–187 (2021).[19]

  ”

• Click here for the court's noteworthy announcements in November 2021.

  Court denies review in case concerning pro se habeas petitions[edit]

  • November 1, 2021: SCOTUS denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case RonRico Simmons v. United States, originating from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case concerned whether a court can dismiss pro se habeas petitions as untimely if the petitioner "[fails] to adequately allege a causal connection when petitioner explains how a government impediment 'prevented' him from filing timely, but does not allege with specificity how he discovered and attempted to remedy that impediment."^[49] Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a statement respecting the denial of certiorari, joined by Justice Elena Kagan.^[50]

  In her statement, Justice Sotomayor wrote:^[50]

  “

  RonRico Simmons, Jr., alleges that he was unable to file a habeas petition within one year of his federal conviction, the general deadline for seeking such relief, because the state prisons where he was imprisoned had no materials about federal habeas law. The Sixth Circuit, however, concluded that even if the state prisons lacked any such legal materials, Simmons’ petition was time barred because Simmons, in his pro se filing, failed “to allege a causal connection” between his inability to access materials about federal habeas law and his failure to file a federal habeas petition. 974 F. 3d 791, 798 (2020). Because this petition does not meet our traditional criteria for review, I do not dissent from the denial of certiorari. I write separately to stress that the Sixth Circuit’s parsimonious reading of Simmons’ pro se motion appears contrary to our longstanding instruction that pro se filings must be “liberally construed.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 106 (1976). ... A petitioner’s failure to explain causation adequately may be proper cause for the court to provide clear guidance and an opportunity to remedy, or to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the relevant facts, as other Circuits have required in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Estremera v. United States, 724 F. 3d 773, 777 (CA7 2013); Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F. 3d 1146, 1148 (CA9 2000) (en banc). It is rarely a reason to find a pro se habeas petition time barred on the pleadings. I trust the courts of appeals will do so only where our liberal pleading standards warrant such a harsh result. ...[19]

  ”

  Court denies review in a capital case[edit]

  • November 1, 2021: SCOTUS denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in a capital case, Wesley Paul Coonce, Jr. v. United States, originating from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The case concerned whether the death penalty sentence of petitioner Wesley Paul Coonce Jr. violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because he had an intellectual disability. Coonce was convicted of murder in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the denial of certiorari, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.^[50]

  In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:^[50]

  “

  Petitioner Wesley Paul Coonce, Jr., was convicted in federal court of murder. Facing the death penalty, he argued that his execution would violate the Eighth Amendment because he has an intellectual disability. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304 (2002). The District Court denied Coonce’s Atkins claim without a hearing, the jury sentenced him to death, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. In denying Coonce relief without a hearing, the courts relied on the definition of intellectual disability by the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), which then required that an impairment manifest before age 18. It is undisputed that Coonce’s impairments fully manifested at age 20. After Coonce petitioned for certiorari, the AAIDD changed its definition to include impairments that, like Coonce’s, manifested before age 22. The Government urges us to grant certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand (GVR), conceding that it is reasonably probable that the Eighth Circuit would reach a different result on reconsideration given the significant shift in the definition that formed the basis of its opinion. Instead, the Court denies certiorari. Because Coonce is entitled to a hearing on his Atkins claim, and because our precedents counsel in favor of a GVR, I respectfully dissent. ...[19]

  ”

  Court denies review in case concerning the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)[edit]

  • November 1, 2021: SCOTUS denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case American Civil Liberties Union v. United States, originating from and concerning the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR). Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from the denial of certiorari, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.^[50]

  In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:^[50]

  “

  ... With changes in technology and thanks to various legislative amendments, these courts have come to play an increasingly important role in the Nation’s life. Today, the FISC evaluates extensive surveillance programs that carry profound implications for Americans’ privacy and their rights to speak and associate freely. ... Like other courts, the FISC may announce its rulings in opinions that explain its interpretation of relevant statutory and constitutional law. Unlike most other courts, however, FISC holds its proceedings in secret and does not customarily publish its decisions. In 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sought to test this practice. It filed motions with the FISC asserting that the First Amendment provides a qualified right of public access to opinions containing significant legal analysis—even if portions must be redacted. ... In the end, however, both the FISC and the FISCR refused the ACLU’s request. In fact, they refused even to consider the question, claiming they lacked authority to do so. Now the ACLU has filed a petition for certiorari asking this Court to review these decisions. In response, the government does not merely argue that the lower court rulings should be left undisturbed because they are correct. The government also presses the extraordinary claim that this Court is powerless to review the lower court decisions even if they are mistaken. On the government’s view, literally no court in this country has the power to decide whether citizens possess a First Amendment right of access to the work of our national security courts. Today the Court declines to take up this matter. I would hear it. This case presents questions about the right of public access to Article III judicial proceedings of grave national importance. Maybe even more fundamentally, this case involves a governmental challenge to the power of this Court to review the work of Article III judges in a subordinate court. If these matters are not worthy of our time, what is? Respectfully, I dissent.[19]

  ”

• Click here for the court's noteworthy announcements in September and October 2021.

  Court declines request to block enforcement of Maine vaccine mandate[edit]

  • October 29, 2021: SCOTUS denied a request by health care workers in Maine to halt a state vaccine mandate, requiring that they be vaccinated against COVID-19 and not allowing religious exemptions, which they challenged based on their religious beliefs. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurrence, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissent from the denial, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.^[51]

  In her concurrence, Justice Barrett wrote:^[51]

  “

  When this Court is asked to grant extraordinary relief, it considers, among other things, whether the applicant “‘is likely to succeed on the merits.’” Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009). I understand this factor to encompass not only an assessment of the underlying merits but also a discretionary judgment about whether the Court should grant review in the case. See, e.g., Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam); cf. Supreme Court Rule 10. Were the standard otherwise, applicants could use the emergency docket to force the Court to give a merits preview in cases that it would be unlikely to take—and to do so on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument. In my view, this discretionary consideration counsels against a grant of extraordinary relief in this case, which is the first to address the questions presented.[19]

  ”

  In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:^[51]

  “

  ... This case presents an important constitutional question, a serious error, and an irreparable injury. Where many other States have adopted religious exemptions, Maine has charted a different course. There, healthcare workers who have served on the front line of a pandemic for the last 18 months are now being fired and their practices shuttered. All for adhering to their constitutionally protected religious beliefs. Their plight is worthy of our attention. I would grant relief.[19]

  ”

  Court reinstates execution order in Oklahoma[edit]

  • October 28, 2021: In a 5-3 vote, SCOTUS granted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's request to allow the execution of John Marion Grant, who was imprisoned in an Oklahoma state prison for murder, to be put to death. Grant was executed the same day via lethal injection. The order stated that Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan would deny the request. Justice Neil Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the application.^[52][53]

  Court declines to postpone execution in Alabama[edit]

  • October 21, 2021: SCOTUS denied to postpone the execution of Willie Smith III, who was imprisoned in an Alabama state prison for kidnapping and murder. Smith requested for the method of execution to be changed from lethal injection to nitrogen hypoxia but did not make the request on the election form in the requisite time window and his request was denied. His legal counsel argued he did not understand the form as a result of an intellectual disability and argued that the state did not properly accommodate him, a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Smith appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that prison officials violated state law by refusing him the ability to select his execution method. Smith was executed following SCOTUS' ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a statement regarding the denial of the stay:^[54][55]

  “	... Alabama does not dispute that Willie Smith has significantly below-average intellectual functioning. Although the State debates his precise reading level and IQ, those disputes do not resolve the fundamental inequity: the State’s compressed timeline for notifying eligible inmates and haphazard approach to doing so. Once a State has determined that individuals on death row should have a choice as to how the State will execute them, it should ensure that a meaningful choice is provided.[19]	”
  —Justice Sotomayor

  Justice Breyer declines request to block enforcement of state vaccine mandate[edit]

  • October 19, 2021: Justice Stephen Breyer denied a request by health care workers in Maine to halt a state vaccine mandate, requiring that they be vaccinated against COVID-19 and not allowing religious exemptions, which they challenged based on their religious beliefs. The plaintiffs could file a new request with SCOTUS following an action by the appeals court. The request was denied without being referred to the full court.^[56][57][58]

  Court grants expedited consideration for petition for a writ of certiorari in case[edit]

  • October 18, 2021: SCOTUS granted the petitioners' request to expedite consideration of their petition for a writ of certiorari in the case Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson. Respondents were required to file a response to the petition on or before noon on October 21, 2021.^[59] The case concerns a Texas state law that banned abortion procedures after six weeks of pregnancy and authorized private civil right of action related to violations of the law. The latter authorization allowed private citizens to bring civil actions against individuals for aiding a patient with getting an abortion. The petitioners, a group of abortion providers, challenged the law, arguing that it violates the Supreme Court’s rulings in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which establish the constitutional right to have an abortion before the point of fetal viability approximately 24 weeks into a pregnancy. Previously on August 31, 2021, the court did not respond to the petitioners' emergency appeal seeking to block enforcement of the state law. On September 1, the court issued a 5-4 ruling denying the request.^{[60][61][62][63][64]}

  Justice Kavanaugh tests positive for coronavirus[edit]

  • October 1, 2021: SCOTUS announced that Justice Brett Kavanaugh tested positive for coronavirus. The court stated that Kavanaugh tested positive on Thursday, September 30, following a routine test, adding that he was asymptomatic and had been fully vaccinated since January 2021. Kavanaugh would not attend the October 1 investiture ceremony for Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Kavanaugh and the other eight justices had tested negative as of Monday, September 27, prior to the justices’ conference.^[65][66]

  Court releases COVID-19 procedures for oral arguments during October, November, December sittings[edit]

  • September 27, 2021: SCOTUS released new procedures for oral arguments during the October, November, and December sittings, in accordance with the court’s COVID-19 protocols.^[67]

  According to the clerk of court’s announcement:^[67]

  1. Arguing counsel attending arguments are required to take a COVID test the morning before argument in their case.
  2. Arguing counsel who test positive for COVID will be expected to participate in arguments remotely via teleconference.
  3. Arguing counsel will be apprised of courtroom procedures and may ask questions prior to arguments in the court’s Lawyer’s Lounge. Argument audio will be made available in the Lawyer’s Lounge. Counsel in the first case argued for the day must leave the court building after arguments conclude.
  4. Counsel must wear masks covering the nose and mouth at all times while within the court building, except when eating or drinking. Counsel must wear N95 or KN95 masks in the courtroom, except when presenting arguments. Masks will be provided by the court in the Lawyer’s Lounge.

  Court announces in-person arguments for October, November, December sittings[edit]

  • September 8, 2021: SCOTUS announced that it would hear oral arguments in person for the first time since March 4, 2020, during its October, November, and December sittings. However, the court was not open to the public, in accordance with its precautions in response to COVID-19. Argument audio was streamed live to the public, as it was during the 2020-2021 term. The audio files and argument transcripts for cases were posted on the Court’s website following oral argument each day.^[68][69]

Term data[edit]

2021-2022 term data[edit]

The 2021-2022 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began on October 4, 2021. The following table provides data on the decisions the court issued during the 2021-2022 term.

2021-2022 SCOTUS term data
Case	Court of origination	Argument date	Date decided	Decision	Vote	Opinion author
American Medical Association v. Cochran (Consolidated with Oregon v. Cochran and Cochran v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore)	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	N/A	May 17, 2021	dismissed	N/A	N/A
Department of Homeland Security v. New York	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit	N/A	May 9, 2021	dismissed	N/A	N/A
Wooden v. United States	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit	October 4, 2021	March 7, 2022	reversed and remanded	9-0	Elena Kagan
Babcock v. Kijakazi	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit	October 13, 2021	January 13, 2022	affirmed	8-1	Amy Coney Barrett
United States v. Vaello-Madero	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit	November 9, 2021	April 21, 2022	reversed	8-1	Brett Kavanaugh
Thompson v. Clark	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit	October 12, 2021	April 4, 2022	reversed and remanded	6-3	Brett Kavanaugh
United States v. Tsarnaev	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit	October 13, 2021	March 4, 2022	reversed	6-3	Clarence Thomas
Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit	N/A	September 29, 2021	dismissed	N/A	N/A
Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C.	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit	October 12, 2021	March 3, 2022	reversed and remanded	8-1	Samuel Alito
Brown v. Davenport	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit	October 5, 2021	April 21, 2022	reversed	6-3	Neil Gorsuch
Hemphill v. New York	New York Court of Appeals	October 5, 2021	January 20, 2022	reversed and remanded	8-1	Sonia Sotomayor
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit	November 3, 2021	June 23, 2022	reversed and remanded	6-3	Clarence Thomas
Houston Community College System v. Wilson	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	November 2, 2021	March 24, 2022	reversed	9-0	Neil Gorsuch
United States v. Zubaydah	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	October 6, 2021	March 3, 2022	reversed and remanded	7-2	Stephen Breyer
Badgerow v. Walters	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	November 2, 2021	March 31, 2022	reversed and remanded	8-1	Elena Kagan
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	December 1, 2021	June 24, 2022	reversed and remanded	6-3	Samuel Alito
Shinn v. Ramirez	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	December 8, 2021	May 23, 2022	reversed	6-3	Clarence Thomas
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	November 8, 2021	February 24, 2022	vacated and remanded	6-3	Stephen Breyer
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	November 8, 2021	March 4, 2022	reversed and remanded	9-0	Samuel Alito
City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas, Inc.	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	November 10, 2021	April 21, 2022	reversed and remanded	6-3	Sonia Sotomayor
Patel v. Garland	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit	December 6, 2021	May 16, 2022	affirmed	5-4	Amy Coney Barrett
Carson v. Makin	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit	December 8, 2021	June 21, 2022	reversed and remanded	6-3	John Roberts
United States v. Taylor	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit	December 7, 2021	June 21, 2022	affirmed	7-2	Neil Gorsuch
Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C.	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	November 30, 2021	April 28, 2022	affirmed	6-3	John Roberts
Hughes v. Northwestern University	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit	December 6, 2021	January 24, 2022	vacated and remanded	8-0[70]	Sonia Sotomayor
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	November 29, 2021	June 24, 2022	reversed and remanded	5-4	Elena Kagan
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	N/A	November 12, 2021	dismissed	N/A	N/A
Gallardo v. Marstiller	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit	January 10, 2022	June 6, 2022	affirmed	7-2	Clarence Thomas
American Hospital Association v. Becerra	U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit	November 30, 2021	June 15, 2022	reversed and remanded	9-0	Brett Kavanaugh
Pivotal Software, Inc. v. Tran	Superior Court of California	N/A - removed from argument calendar	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Mississippi v. Tennessee	Original jurisdiction	October 4, 2021	November 22, 2021	dismissed	9-0	Chief Justice John Roberts
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit	January 11, 2022	June 13, 2022	reversed and remanded	8-1	Sonia Sotomayor
Garland v. Gonzalez	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	January 11, 2022	June 13, 2022	reversed and remanded	6-3	Samuel Alito
Ramirez v. Collier	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	November 9, 2021	March 24, 2022	reversed and remanded	8-1	John Roberts
Concepcion v. United States	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit	January 19, 2022	June 27, 2022	reversed and remanded	5-4	Sonia Sotomayor
Shurtleff v. City of Boston	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit	January 18, 2022	May 2, 2022	reversed and remanded	9-0	Stephen Breyer
Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit	January 12, 2022	April 21, 2022	reversed and remanded	9-0	Amy Coney Barrett
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	January 18, 2022	April 21, 2022	vacated and remanded	9-0	Elena Kagan
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate	U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia	January 19, 2022	May 16, 2022	affirmed	6-3	John Roberts
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	February 22, 2022	June 15, 2022	vacated and remanded	5-4	Neil Gorsuch
Denezpi v. United States	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit	February 22, 2022	June 13, 2022	affirmed	6-3	Amy Coney Barrett
Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	N/A	October 18, 2021	reversed	N/A	Per curiam
City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma v. Bond	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit	N/A	October 18, 2021	reversed	N/A	Per curiam
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	November 1, 2021	December 10, 2021	affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded	8-1	Neil Gorsuch
United States v. Texas	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	November 1, 2021	December 10, 2021	dismissed	N/A	Per curiam
Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	February 23, 2022	June 15, 2022	dismissed	N/A	Per curiam
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (Consolidated with North American Coal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Westmoreland Mining Holdings v. Environmental Protection Agency, and North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency)	U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit	February 28, 2022	June 30, 2022	reversed and remanded	6-3	John Roberts
Ruan v. United States (Consolidated with Kahn v. United States)	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit	March 1, 2022	June 27, 2022	vacated and remanded	9-0	Stephen Breyer
Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita, Inc.	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit	March 1, 2022	June 21, 2022	reversed and remanded	7-2	Brett Kavanaugh
Egbert v. Boule	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	March 2, 2022	June 8, 2022	reversed	6-3	Clarence Thomas
Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit	March 21, 2022	May 23, 2022	vacated and remanded	9-0	Elena Kagan
Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit	March 21, 2022	June 23, 2022	reversed	8-1	Neil Gorsuch
Golan v. Saada	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit	March 22, 2022	June 15, 2022	vacated and remanded	9-0	Sonia Sotomayor
Southwest Airlines v. Saxon	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit	March 28, 2022	June 6, 2022	affirmed	8-0	Clarence Thomas
ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. (Consolidated with AlixPartners, LLC v. Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States)	U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan	March 23, 2022	June 13, 2022	reversed	9-0	Amy Coney Barrett
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety	Texas Thirteenth District Court of Appeals	March 29, 2022	June 29, 2022	reversed and remanded	5-4	Stephen Breyer
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana	California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate Division, Division Three	March 29, 2022	June 15, 2022	reversed and remanded	8-1	Samuel Alito
LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit	March 28, 2022	April 28, 2022	affirmed	N/A	per curiam
United States v. Washington	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	April 18, 2022	June 21, 2022	reversed and remanded	9-0	Stephen Breyer
Siegel v. Fitzgerald	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit	April 18, 2022	June 6, 2022	reversed and remanded	9-0	Sonia Sotomayor
Kemp v. United States	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit	April 19, 2022	June 13, 2022	affirmed	8-1	Clarence Thomas
George v. McDonough	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit	April 19, 2022	June 15, 2022	affirmed	6-3	Amy Coney Barrett
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	April 25, 2022	June 27, 2022	reversed	6-3	Neil Gorsuch
Vega v. Tekoh	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit	April 20, 2022	June 23, 2022	reversed and remanded	6-3	Samuel Alito
Nance v. Ward	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit	April 25, 2022	June 23, 2022	reversed and remanded	5-4	Elena Kagan
Shoop v. Twyford	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit	April 26, 2022	June 21, 2022	reversed and remanded	5-4	John Roberts
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta	Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals	April 27, 2022	June 29, 2022	reversed and remanded	5-4	Brett Kavanaugh
Biden v. Texas	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit	April 26, 2022	June 30, 2022	reversed and remanded	5-4	John Roberts
Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission	Wisconsin Supreme Court	N/A	March 23, 2022	reversed	N/A	Per curiam
National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit	January 7, 2022	January 13, 2022	Application granted	6-3	Per curiam
Biden v. Missouri	U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit	January 7, 2022	January 13, 2022	Application granted	5-4	Per curiam

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:^[71]

• 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:^[72]

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.^[71]

Justice alignment[edit]

The following justice alignment table shows justice agreement rates for non-unanimous rulings during the 2021-2022 term. The data does not include agreements in part.

• The highest agreement rate was 100 percent, which applied to the following pairing:
  • Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh

• Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh also had the highest average agreement rate with each of the other eight justices at 66 percent

• The lowest agreement rate was 14 percent, which applied to the following pairing:
  • Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor had the lowest average agreement rate with each of the other eight justices at 41 percent

SCOTUS case reversal rates[edit]

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

From 2007 to the most recently completed term, the Supreme Court of the United States released opinions in 1,250 cases, averaging 73.5 cases per year. During that period, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision 891 times (71.3 percent) and affirmed a lower court decision 347 times (27.8 percent). The vast majority of cases heard by the high court originate in a lower court, such as the 13 appellate circuit courts, state-level courts, and federal district courts. Between 2007 and 2023, the high court decided more cases originating from the Ninth Circuit (243) than from any other circuit.

For more historical term data, click here.

Active justices[edit]

See also: Supreme Court of the United States

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  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
	Associate justice  Amy Coney Barrett	1972	New Orleans, La.	Trump	October 26, 2020 - Present	Ruth Bader Ginsburg	Notre Dame Law School, 1997

Case history[edit]

2020-2021 term[edit]

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

In the 2020-2021 term, SCOTUS agreed to consider 62 cases. Click here for more information.

2019-2020 term[edit]

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020

In the 2019-2020 term, the court agreed to consider 74 cases. Click here for more information.

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]

• Search Google News for this topic
• 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