The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2021 term, which began October 4, 2021 and concluded October 2, 2022.
Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted.
Chief Justice: John Roberts
Associate Justices: Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
Full caption: | Daniel Rivas-Villegas v. Ramon Cortesluna |
---|---|
Citations: | 595 U.S. ___ |
Prior history: | Cortesluna v. Leon, 979 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2020) |
---- | |
Full text of the opinion: | official slip opinion · FindLaw |
595 U.S. ___
Decided October 18, 2021.
Daniel Rivas-Villegas was a Union City, California police officer who responded to a domestic violence call. A crying 12-year-old girl called 911 to report that she, her 15-year-old sister, and their mother had locked themselves in a room at their house out of fear that their mother's boyfriend, Ramon Cortesluna, would hurt them. Rivas-Villegas was dispatched to the home along with several other officers. They entered the home and confronted Cortesluna, ordering him to put his hands up and get on his knees. Cortesluna did so, and one of the officers noticed a knife in his pocket. The officer ordered him to stop moving, but Cortesluna moved his head and hands downward. The officer then shot two Bean bag rounds at him, and while he was subdued, Officer Rivas-Villegas approached and straddled Cortesluna, placing his knee on Cortesluna's back. Another officer removed the knife from Cortesluna's pocket, and both officers then handcuffed and arrested Cortesluna.
Cortesluna sued Rivas-Villegas, alleging that Rivas-Villegas used excessive force in how he subdued Cortesluna. The district court granted summary judgement to Rivas-Villegas, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, holding that Rivas-Villegas was not entitled to qualified immunity because of a 2000 case that had a similar fact pattern. Judge Daniel P. Collins dissented, arguing that the facts of the earlier case and this one were different enough that qualified immunity could be granted. The United States Supreme Court agreed with Judge Collins that the two cases had different enough fact patterns, and thus reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgement that Officer Rivas-Villegas was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Full caption: | City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma, et al. v. Austin P. Bond, ex rel. Dominic F. Rollie, Deceased |
---|---|
Citations: | 595 U.S. ___ |
Prior history: | Bond v. City of Tahlequah, 981 F.3d 808 (10th Cir. 2020) |
---- | |
Full text of the opinion: | official slip opinion · Justia |
595 U.S. ___
Decided October 18, 2021.
Tenth Circuit reversed.
Full caption: | United States v. Texas, et. al. |
---|---|
Citations: | 595 U.S. ___ |
---- | |
Full text of the opinion: | official slip opinion · Oyez |
595 U.S. ___
Argued November 1, 2021.
Decided December 10, 2021.
The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. The application to vacate stay was denied.
Sotomayor dissented without separate opinion.
Full caption: | Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, et al. v. Missouri, et al. |
---|---|
Citations: | 595 U.S. ___ |
---- | |
Full text of the opinion: | official slip opinion · Justia |
595 U.S. ___
Argued January 7, 2022.
Decided January 13, 2022.
Applications for stays granted.
Thomas filed a dissent, joined by Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Alito filed a dissent, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett.
Full caption: | National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, et al. |
---|---|
Citations: | 595 U.S. ___ |
---- | |
Full text of the opinion: | official slip opinion · Oyez · Cornell |
595 U.S. ___
Argued January 7, 2022.
Decided January 13, 2022.
Applications for stays granted.
Gorsuch filed a concurrence, joined by Thomas and Alito. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissent.
Full caption: | Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission |
---|---|
Citations: | 595 U.S. ___ |
---- | |
Full text of the opinion: | official slip opinion · Cornell |
595 U.S. ___
Decided March 23, 2022.
After each decennial census, all 50 states are required to re-draw their state legislative districts so that the population of each district is proportional. After the 2020 United States census, Wisconsin's state legislature drew and passed proposed maps, which were vetoed by Governor Tony Evers. Deadlocked, both parties turned to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which invited several parties and intervenors, including the governor and the legislature, to submit proposals that complied with the United States Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution, and contained the fewest changes from the previously enacted maps. In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court chose the maps that Governor Evers submitted, which created seven majority-black districts, one more majority-black district than the previous maps contained. In adopting the Governor's proposed maps, Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote that the Court "cannot say for certain on this record that seven majority-Black assembly districts are required by the VRA,” but concluded that there were “good reasons” to think that the VRA “may” require another majority-black district.
The Wisconsin Legislature appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision, holding that a state must find that adding majority-minority district is required under the Voting Rights Act, not simply that it would be allowable under the VRA.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, which was joined by Justice Kagan. In it, she argued that this was not a case fit for summary reversal, as the VRA precedents that the majority claimed existed were "hazy at best."
Full caption: | LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company |
---|---|
Citations: | 595 U.S. ___ |
---- | |
Full text of the opinion: | official slip opinion |
595 U.S. ___
Argued March 28, 2022.
Decided April 28, 2022.
Bradley LeDure was an employee of the Union Pacific Railroad Company when he slipped and fell on an oily walkway in a rail yard in Salem, Illinois. LeDure sued Union Pacific for negligence, claiming violations of the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Federal Employers Liability Act because the railroad did not maintain a hazard-free work environment. The District Court granted summary judgment for Union Pacific and dismissed LeDure's suit with prejudice. The District Court also found that the Locomotive Inspection Act did not apply because the equipment that LeDure slipped on was not "in use" at the time of the incident. LeDure appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and a panel consisting of judges Bauer, Kanne, and Barrett affirmed summary judgement, agreeing that the rail equipment was not "in use" at the time that LeDure slipped. This interpretation of "in use" conflicted with the interpretations of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals. The conflict created a circuit split, and LeDure appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
Between the decision of the Seventh Circuit in June 2020 and the granting of certiorari in December 2021, Amy Coney Barrett was elevated to the United States Supreme Court. She recused herself from hearing the case at the Supreme Court, likely because her sitting in review of her own decision would have created a conflict of interest. As a result, only the remaining eight justices heard oral arguments in March 2022. The Court split 4-4 in their decision, so a per curium opinion was issued and the Seventh Circuit's decision was affirmed by an evenly-divided Court.
Full caption: | Arizona, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al. |
---|---|
Citations: | 596 U.S. ___ |
---- | |
Full text of the opinion: | official slip opinion · Oyez |
596 U.S. ___
Argued February 23, 2022.
Decided June 15, 2022.
The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
Roberts filed a concurrence, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2013 term, which began October 7, 2013 and concluded October 5, 2014.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2017 term, which began October 2, 2017, and concluded September 30, 2018.
Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019), was a civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim brought under the First Amendment, unless officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down seven per curiam opinions during its 2018 term, which began October 1, 2018, and concluded October 6, 2019.
Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "when a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant."
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2019 term, which began October 7, 2019 and concluded October 4, 2020.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2020 term, which began October 5, 2020 and concluded October 3, 2021.
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a case in the United States Supreme Court dealing with matters of jurisdiction of various climate change lawsuits in the United States judicial system.
United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution as it related to patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In a complex decision, the Court ruled that these judges were considered "principal officers" under the Appointments Clause, normally subject to appointment through the US President and the US Senate, but to remedy the matter, the Court ruled that the constitutional issue is resolved by allowing the PTAB decisions to be subject to review by the appropriately-appointed Director of the Patent Office.
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with exemptions from blending requirements for small refineries set by the Renewable Fuel Standard program. The case dealt with the statutory interpretation of the congressional language for extending the exemption, if this allowed a lapse in the exemption or not. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that by the majority's interpretation of the law, the congressional law did allow for refineries to seek extensions after their exemption period had lapsed.
United States v. Zubaydah, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the state secrets privilege.
Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366 (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. 1 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The appellees and respondents argued that Alabama's congressional districts discriminated against African-American voters. The Court ruled 5–4 that Alabama's districts likely violated the VRA, maintained an injunction that required Alabama to create an additional majority-minority district.
Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a Supreme Court of the United States case dealing with the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that multiple criminal offenses that a person commits during a single criminal episode do not count as separate convictions when considering the number of prior convictions a criminal has under the ACCA.
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Dormant Commerce Clause.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down three per curiam opinions during its 2022 term, which began October 3, 2022 and concluded October 1, 2023.
The Supreme Court of the United States has so far handed down multiple per curiam opinions during its 2023 term, which began October 2, 2023, and will conclude October 6, 2024.
The Supreme Court of the United States has so far handed down one per curiam opinion during its 2024 term, which began October 7, 2024, and will conclude October 5, 2025.