Summaries of all Opinions (including Concurrences and Dissents), in argued and non-argument cases and Orders; certiorari grants for the upcoming Term; a chart of “Who Wrote What;” and a brief Overview of the Term, regarding all Criminal Law and related cases before the U.S. Supreme Court (with clickable links to the cases).
Prepared by: Professor Rory K. Little, UC Law SF
Quick and concise summary of current US Supreme Court cases on criminal justice on the day of the decision provided by the ABA Criminal Justice Section office.
(Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court on June 12, 2025. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch and Jackson joined. Justice Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Thomas, Alito,and Kavanaugh joined.)
Summary: Parties are entitled to a jury trial on the issue of exhaustion of remedies under The Prison Litigation Reform Act when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.
Decision is available here.
(Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court on June 20, 2025. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Kagan, and Kavanaugh joined. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined in part. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Gorsuch joined.)
Summary: A district court considering whether to revoke a defendant’s term of supervised release may not consider 18 U. S. C. §3553(a)(2)(A), which covers retribution vis-à-vis the defendant’s underlying criminal offense.
Decision is available here.
(Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court on June 20, 2025. Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined in part.)
Summary: The Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act’s personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches.
Decision is available here.
(Unanimous opinion by Justice Kagan on June 5, 2025. Justices Thomas and Jackson filed concurring opinions.)
Summary: Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U. S. C. §7901(a)(3), bars the lawsuit.
Decision is available here.
(Opinion by Justice Barrett on May 22, 2025. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.)
Summary: A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss.
Decision is available here.
(Opinion by Justice Kagan on May 15, 2025, for a unanimous Court. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito and Barrett joined.)
Summary: The Fifth Circuit’s moment-of-threat rule—a framework for evaluating police shootings which requires a court to look only to the circumstances existing at the precise time an officer perceived the threat inducing him to shoot—improperly narrows the Fourth Amendment analysis of police use of force.
Decision is available here: 23-1239 Barnes v. Felix (05/15/2025)
(Opinion by Justice Thomas on March 21, 2025. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Jackson joined.)
Summary: The knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the “use” of “physical force” against another person within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(A).
Decision is available here.
(Opinion by Justice Gorsuch on March 26, 2025. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh and Jackson each filed concurring opinions. Justices Thomas and Alito each filed dissents.)
Summary: ATF's 2022 Rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 to cover certain products that can readily be converted into an operational firearm or a functional frame or receiver ("Ghost Guns"), see 27 CFR §§478.11, 478.12(c), is not facially inconsistent with the Act.
Decision is available here.
(Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts for a unanimous Court on March 21, 2025. Justices Alito and Jackson filed concurring opinions.)
Summary: Title 18 U. S. C. §1014, which prohibits “knowingly mak[ing] any false statement,” does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false.
Decision is available here.
(Opinion by Justice Sotomayor on February 25, 2025. Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson joined. Justice Barrett joined in part., Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined, and in which Justice Barrett joined in part. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case)
Summary: The Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals; the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264.
Decision is available here.
(6-3, Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on July 1, 2024. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Barret filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filled a dissenting opinion)
Summary: The nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority; he is also entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts; there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Decision is available here.
(6-3, Opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 28, 2024. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined)
Summary: The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
Decision is available here.
(6-3, Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 28, 2024. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Kagan and Sotomayor joined)
Summary: To prove a violation of 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(2)—a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act—the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.
Decision is available here.
(6-3, Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on June 26, 2024. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Kagan and Sotomayor joined)
Summary: The Court reversed and remanded the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) does not criminalize payments in recognition of actions a local or state official has already taken or committed to take. The court also clarified that an agreement or promise to pay a 'reward' to a local or state official for taking an action does not violate the statute as long as the agreement or promise was only made after the action was taken.
Decision is available here: 23-108 Snyder v. United States (06/26/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
(8-1, Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 21, 2024. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson also filed concurring opinions. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion)
Summary: The Court reversed and remanded the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a threat to the physical safety of others, temporarily disarming that individual does not violate the Second Amendment. The Court clarified that U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) is therefore constitutional.
Decision is available here: 22-915 United States v. Rahimi (06/21/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
(9-0, Opinion by Justice Kagan on June 21, 2024. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed opinions concurring in part. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgement, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined)
Summary: The Court vacated and remanded the Arizona Court of Appeals. The Court held that when an expert’s testimony includes the testimonial statements of a non-testifying analyst, and such statements will only support the expert’s testimony if true, then such statements will come into evidence if true.
Decision is available here: 22-899 Smith v. Arizona (06/21/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
(6-3, Opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 21, 2024. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined and in which Justice Jackson joined in all except Part III. Justice Jackson also filed an dissenting opinion)
Summary: The Court vacated and remanded the Seventh Court of Appeals. The Court held that in order to prevent Fifth and Sixth Amendments violations when imposing an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, certain requirements must be met. These requirements include a unanimous jury verdict and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s prior offenses were committed on separate occasions.
Decision is available here: 23-370 Erlinger v. United States (06/21/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
(Per Curiam Opinion by the Court on June 20, 2024. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Sotomayor joined.)
Summary: The Court remanded the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Fifth Circuit erred when it required petitioner to provide specific comparator evidence in support of her retaliatory arrest claim. The Court held that plaintiffs do not need to provide virtually identical comparators in order to be exempted from the absence of probable requirement established by Nieves v. Bartlett.
Decision is available here: 22-1025 Gonzalez v. Trevino (06/20/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
(6-3, Opinion by Justice Thomas on June 20, 2024. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Sotomayor joined.)
Summary: The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that expert testimony stating that “most people” in a group have a certain mental state cannot be considered an expert opinion about the actual defendant and that such testimony does not therefore violate Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b).
Decision is available here: 23-14 Diaz v. United States (06/20/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
(6-3, Opinion by Justice Kagan on June 20, 2024. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Gorsuch also filed a dissenting opinion)
Summary: The Court remanded the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that when a criminal defendant faces multiple charges, the presence of probable cause for one of the charges does not bar that defendant from later making a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim in regards to the other charges.
Decision is available here: 23-50 Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon (06/20/24) (supremecourt.gov)
(6-3, Opinion by Justice Thomas on June 14, 2024. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.)
Summary: The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that when it enacted §5845(b), Congress had intended to define machineguns as guns which could fire more than one shot “automatically….by a single function of the trigger”. The definition of ‘machinegun’ therefore turns upon the question of single trigger function and not upon the question of rate of fire. The Court held that under this definition, semiautomatic rifles with a bump stock cannot be considered machineguns. The Court also held that §5845(b) covers a large array of firearms and therefore is not rendered ineffective simply because the Court rules the code section does not cover semiautomatic rifles with bump stocks.
Decision is available here: 22-976 Garland v. Cargill (06/14/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
(6-3, Opinion by Justice Alito on May 30, 2024. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Kagan joined. Justice Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion.
Summary: The Court reversed and remanded the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Eighth Circuit had erred in granting Habeas relief on Jones’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Court held that when a capital defendant asserts that counsel failed to present mitigating evidence, courts must consider whether that mitigating evidence would have led to the defendant avoiding the death penalty.
Decision is available here:
22-982 Thornell v. Jones (05/30/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
(6-3, Opinion by Justice Kagan on March 15, 2024. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.)
Summary: The Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court held that a criminal defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence is only eligible for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) only if the defendant satisfies each of the provision’s three conditions.
Decision is available here: 22-340 Pulsifer v. United States (03/15/2024) (supremecourt.gov)
(9-0, Opinion by Justice Jackson on Feb.21, 2024. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion.)
Summary: The Court reversed and remanded the Georgia Supreme Court. The Court held that a jury’s finding of not guilty by reason of insanity constitutes an acquittal for purposes of double jeopardy, notwithstanding inconsistencies with the jury’s other verdicts on the same case.
Decision is available here.