Supreme Court of the United States

Today at the Court - Wednesday, Jun 26, 2024


  • The Court will convene for a public non-argument session in the Courtroom at 10 a.m.
  • The Court may announce opinions, which are posted on the homepage after announcement from the Bench.
  • Seating for the non-argument session will be provided to the public, members of the Supreme Court Bar, and press. The Supreme Court Building will otherwise be closed to the public.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<<June 2024><<
June 2024
SMTWTFS
      1
2345
 
78
9101112
 
1415
161718
 
 
2122
23242526272829
30      
Calendar Info/Key

 



Recent Decisions


June 26, 2024
         
Murthy v. Missouri (23-411)
Respondents—two States and five individual social-media users who sued Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that the Government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment—lack Article III standing to seek an injunction.

         
Snyder v. United States (23-108)
Federal law, 18 U. S. C. §666, proscribes bribes to state and local officials but does not make it a crime for those officials to accept gratuities for their past acts.



June 21, 2024
         
Texas v. New Mexico (141, Orig.)
The motion to enter a proposed consent decree that would dispose of the United States’ claims in the Rio Grande Compact without its consent is denied.

         
Department of State v. Munoz (23-334)
A U. S. citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.

         
Erlinger v. United States (23-370)
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make the determination beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U. S. C. § §924(e)(1).

         
Smith v. Arizona (22-899)
When an expert conveys an absent lab analyst’s statements in support of the expert’s opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth, and thus implicate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

         
United States v. Rahimi (22-915)
When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.



More Opinions...

Did You Know...

Foul Ball


On June 17, 1967, Chief Justice Earl Warren, an avid baseball fan, attended a game at RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C. The Washington Senators played the Boston Red Sox, who ultimately won the game. Also in attendance were spectators Clem Galligan and his 8-year-old son, John, seated within eyesight of the Chief Justice. Much to their delight, a foul ball landed on John’s seat. After the game, his father asked the Chief Justice to autograph the ball, which he graciously did. Despite some fading to the signature, the signed baseball remained a family treasure until donated to the Supreme Court in 2021.

 

1 / 2
Foul ball signed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, June 17, 1967.
Foul ball signed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, June 17, 1967.
Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
Click on the arrows or dots to see the next photograph.
2 / 2
1960s Washington Senators pennant, donated by the Galligan family, 2021.
1960s Washington Senators pennant, donated by the Galligan family, 2021.
Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
Click on the arrows or dots to see the first photograph.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543