List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 607
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 607 of the United States Reports:
- Note: As of September 2026,[update] final bound volumes for the U.S. Supreme Court's United States Reports have been published through volume 587 (June 2019). Newer cases from subsequent future volumes do not yet have official page numbers and typically use three underscores in place of the page number; e.g., Example v. United States, 700 U.S. ___ (2050).
- In recent years, the court has been committing to citation page numbers before publication of the bound volume. Those commitments can be viewed on their website.
| Case name | Docket no. | Date decided |
|---|---|---|
| Pitts v. Mississippi | 24–1159 | November 24, 2025 |
| The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment requires an individualized finding that a screen is necessary to protect a child from trauma before it can be placed between the child and the defendant during testimony in a criminal trial. | ||
| Clark v. Sweeney | 25–52 | November 24, 2025 |
| Reversing a conviction on appeal based on a claim of constitutional error that the petitioner had never alleged violated the party presentation principle. | ||
| Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC | 25–180 | December 8, 2025 |
| States have no power to create immunity for federal causes of action. | ||
| Bowe v. United States | 24–5438 | January 9, 2026 |
| Under AEDPA, people in federal custody may (1) petition the Supreme Court for review when a court of appeal denies them authorization to file a successive habeas petititon, and (2) reraise arguments that were dismissed during their first habeas petition in the successive petition. | ||
| Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections | 24–568 | January 14, 2026 |
| A candidate for federal office has standing to challenge time, place, and manner regulations created by a state that affect the candidate's federal election. | ||
| Case v. Montana | 24–624 | January 14, 2026 |
| An officer may enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. | ||
| Barrett v. United States | 24–5774 | January 14, 2026 |
| Two separate convictions under both 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(a)(i) and § 924(j) for a single act are not permitted because Congress did not intend that result. | ||
| Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton | 24–808 | January 20, 2026 |
| Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1)'s requirement that parties make Rule 60(b) motions within a "reasonable time" applies to a motion seeking relief from an allegedly void judgment under Rule 60(b)(4). | ||
| Ellingburg v. United States | 24–482 | January 20, 2026 |
| Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. | ||
| Berk v. Choy | 24–440 | January 20, 2026 |
| A state law requiring an affidavit of merit to be filed with a complaint is unenforceable in federal court because it conflicts with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. | ||
| Klein v. Martin | 25–51 | January 26, 2026 |
| The state court applied the proper Brady test, and the Fourth Circuit did not sufficiently defer to the state court under AEDPA because there was enough other evidence suggesting that the defendant would have been convicted regardless of the claimed Brady material. | ||
| Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump | 24–1287 | February 20, 2026 |
| IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. | ||
| Postal Service v. Konan | 24–351 | February 24, 2026 |
| The United States Postal Service cannot be sued for failure to deliver the mail even when postal employees intentionally and maliciously refuse to deliver the mail. | ||
| Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | 24–724 | February 24, 2026 |
| The erroneous dismissal of a non-diverse party after a case has been removed to federal court does not permit the federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction over the case; such a case must be returned to state court. | ||
| GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal | 24–758 | February 25, 2026 |
| An order denying a government contractor's claim of derivative sovereign immunity cannot be immediately appealed. | ||
| Villarreal v. Texas | 24–557 | February 25, 2026 |
| Prohibiting discussion of a defendant's testimony during a mid-testimony overnight recess does not violate the Sixth Amendment. | ||
| Mirabelli v. Bonta | 25A810 | March 2, 2026 |
| Stay granted for the parents and denied for other plaintiffs. It is likely that California cannot require a child's consent before a school may tell a parent about that child's gender transitioning at school or require that schools use children's preferred names and pronouns regardless of their parents' wishes. | ||
| Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. | 24–1021 | March 4, 2026 |
| NJ Transit is not an arm of New Jersey and thus is not entitled to share in New Jersey's interstate sovereign immunity. | ||
| Urias-Orellana v. Bondi | 24–777 | March 4, 2026 |
| When reviewing an immigration court's decision to deny asylum, a reviewing court must apply a substantial-evidence standard. Under that standard, to reverse an immigration court that has found that an asylum applicant was not fleeing persecution, the reviewing court must find that the applicant proved that they were persecuted with evidence that is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution. | ||
| Olivier v. City of Brandon | 24–993 | March 20, 2026 |
| A plaintiff can sue the government under Section 1983 to seek wholly prospective relief from a law that they believe is unconstitutional even though they cannot use Section 1983 to challenge a prior conviction. | ||
| Zorn v. Linton | 25–297 | March 23, 2026 |
| Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a case where an officer taking similar actions in similar circumstances was held to have violated the Constitution, Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity. | ||
| Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment | 24–171 | March 25, 2026 |
| The provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user's infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement, which can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement. | ||
| Rico v. United States | 24–1056 | March 25, 2026 |
| The Sentencing Reform Act does not authorize a rule automatically extending a defendant's term of supervised release when the defendant fails to report to probation. | ||
| Chiles v. Salazar | 24–539 | March 31, 2026 |
| The First Amendment to the United States Constitution requires strict scrutiny review of a state's policy of using its licensing power to restrict topics that therapists may discuss with clients. | ||