This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 588 of the United States Reports :
| Case name | Docket no. | Date decided |
|---|---|---|
| PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc. | 17–1705 | June 20,2019 |
| The extent to which the 2006 FCC order defining "unsolicited advertisement" binds the lower courts may depend on the resolution of two preliminary sets of questions that were not aired before the Court of Appeals. | ||
| Am. Legion v. Am. Humanist Ass'n | 17–1717 | June 20,2019 |
| Though a symbol of Christianity, the cross on public land does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment due to its historical value as a war memorial that has stood for nearly 100 years. | ||
| McDonough v. Smith | 18–485 | June 20,2019 |
| The statute of limitations for a §1983 fabricated-evidence claim began to run when the criminal proceedings end in the §1983 plaintiff's favor. | ||
| Gundy v. United States | 17–6086 | June 20,2019 |
| SORNA's delegation of authority to the Attorney General does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Judgement of the Second Circuit affirmed. | ||
| Knick v. Twp. of Scott | 17–647 | June 21,2019 |
| A government violates the Takings Clause when it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may then bring a Fifth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the state-litigation requirement of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City , is overruled. | ||
| Rehaif v. United States | 17–9560 | June 21,2019 |
| In a prosecution under 18 USC § 922(g) and § 924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. | ||
| N.C. Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust | 18–457 | June 21,2019 |
| The presence of in-state beneficiaries alone does not empower a state to tax trust income that has not been distributed to the beneficiaries where the beneficiaries have no right to demand that income and are uncertain to receive it. | ||
| Flowers v. Mississippi | 17–9572 | June 21,2019 |
| Dutra Group v. Batterton | 18–266 | June 24,2019 |
| A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness. | ||
| Iancu v. Brunetti | 18–302 | June 24,2019 |
| The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" trademarks infringes the First Amendment. | ||
| Food Marketing Inst. v. Argus Leader Media | 18–481 | June 24,2019 |
| Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is "confidential" within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act. | ||
| United States v. Davis | 18–431 | June 24,2019 |
| Tenn. Wine & Spirits Retailers Ass'n v. Thomas | 18–96 | June 26,2019 |
| Tennessee's two-year durational-residency requirement applicable to retail liquor store license applicants violates the Commerce Clause and is not authorized by the Twenty-first Amendment | ||
| Kisor v. Wilkie | 18–15 | June 26,2019 |
| There is no sufficient cause to overturn Auer v. Robbins or Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. , but a court must use all interpretive powers it has to affirm if the Auer deference is appropriate. | ||
| United States v. Haymond | 17–1672 | June 26,2019 |
| The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's judgment – that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k)'s last two sentences are unconstitutional and unenforceable – is vacated, and the case is remanded.[1] | ||
| Rucho v. Common Cause | 18–422 | June 27,2019 |
| Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. | ||
| Dept. of Com. v. New York | 18–966 | June 27,2019 |
| The Secretary of Commerce did not violate either the Enumeration Clause under the Constitution of the United States or the Census Act of 1790 by opting to reinstate a question on a person's status of citizenship to the 2020 census questionnaire, but the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was warranted to remand the case from the judiciary to the bureaucratic agency where the evidence does not tell the same story as that of the Secretary of Commerce. Questioning the status of one's citizenship in the federal census is a reviewable action under the Administrative Procedures Act. | ||
| Mitchell v. Wisconsin | 18–6210 | June 27,2019 |
| When a driver is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant. | ||