This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 585 of the United States Reports :
| Case name | Docket no. | Date decided |
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky | 16–1435 | June 14,2018 |
| Minnesota's ban on political apparel at polling places violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. | ||
| Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. | 16–1220 | June 14,2018 |
| A federal court must provide respectful consideration to a foreign government's representation of its own law, but not conclusive effect. | ||
| Gill v. Whitford | 16–1161 | June 18,2018 |
| Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate personal harm, on the basis argued, as a result of alleged partisan gerrymandering and therefore lacked standing. Remanded to District Court for further proceedings. | ||
| Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach | 17–21 | June 18,2018 |
| Existence of probable cause to arrest the plaintiff in the present case does not bar the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim. | ||
| Chavez-Meza v. United States | 17–5639 | June 18,2018 |
| When the record as a whole demonstrates the judge had a reasoned basis for his decision, the judge's use of generic boilerplate to explain their choice of a sentence reduction under the Guidelines is adequate. | ||
| Rosales-Mireles v. United States | 16–9493 | June 18,2018 |
| A miscalculation of a Guidelines sentencing range that has been determined to be plain and to affect a defendant's substantial rights calls for a court of appeals to exercise its discretion to vacate the defendant's sentence in the ordinary case. | ||
| Benisek v. Lamone | 17–333 | June 18,2018 |
| The District Court's denial of injunctive relief against the use of Maryland's 2011 redistricting maps was not an abuse of discretion. | ||
| South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. | 17–494 | June 21,2018 |
| The physical presence rule is rejected as unsound and incorrect. States may charge sales tax on out-of-state purchases even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the taxing state. | ||
| Pereira v. Sessions | 17–459 | June 21,2018 |
| A Notice to Appear that does not inform a noncitizen when and where to appear for a removal proceeding is not valid under 8 U.S. Code § 1229(b) and therefore does not trigger the stop-time rule which is used to calculate the ten year continuous presence requirement for non-lawful permanent residents. | ||
| Lucia v. SEC | 17–130 | June 21,2018 |
| Administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are considered officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause. | ||
| Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States | 17–530 | June 21,2018 |
| Employee stock options are not taxable "compensation" under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act because they are not "money remuneration". | ||
| Carpenter v. United States | 16–402 | June 22,2018 |
| Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment. | ||
| WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. | 16–1011 | June 22,2018 |
| Awarding lost profits over patent-infringing goods assembled outside of the United States with components manufactured in the United States was a permissible domestic application of Section 284 of the Patent Act. | ||
| Ortiz v. United States | 16–1423 | June 22,2018 |
| 1. The Appointments Clause does not impose rules about an officer of the United States serving in dual roles. Rather, the clause is concerned only with the method of appointment of the officer. 2. Military judge's simultaneous service on an Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Military Commission Review violated neither 10 U. S. C. §973(b)(2)(A) nor the appointments clause of the Constitution. | ||
| Currier v. Virginia | 16–1348 | June 22,2018 |
| If a criminal defendant consents to sever their case into multiple trials, they waive issue preclusion in the subsequent trials. | ||
| Dalmazzi v. United States | 16–961 | June 22,2018 |
| Dismissed as improvidently granted. | ||
| Cox v. United States | 16–1017 | June 22,2018 |
| Dismissed as improvidently granted. | ||
| Ohio v. American Express Company | 16–1454 | June 25,2018 |
| American Express's steering provisions do not violate federal antitrust law. | ||
| Abbott v. Perez | 17–586 | June 25,2018 |
| The Texas court erred in requiring the State to show that the 2013 Legislature purged the "taint" that the court attributed to the defunct and never-used plans enacted by a prior legislature in 2011. | ||
| Trump v. Hawaii | 17–965 | June 26,2018 |
| Presidential Proclamation 9645 did not violate the INA or the Establishment Clause by suspending the entry of aliens from several nations. Substantial deference must be accorded to the Executive in the conduct of foreign affairs and the exclusion of aliens. | ||
| National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra | 16–1140 | June 26,2018 |
| The California Reproductive FACT Act, which required crisis pregnancy centers to alert clients about state-assisted abortions, violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. | ||
| Florida v. Georgia | Orig./ 142, Orig. | June 27,2018 |
| Florida made a legally sufficient showing as to the possibility of fashioning an effective remedial decree equitably apportioning the water of the ACF basin. | ||
| Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees | 16–1466 | June 27,2018 |
| 1. The District Court had jurisdiction over petitioner’s suit. 2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. | ||