This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 605 of the United States Reports :
| Case name | Docket no. | Date decided |
|---|---|---|
| Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy | 23–715 | April 29,2025 |
| Medicare disproportionate share hospital adjustments should only consider patients as "entitled to supplementary security income benefits" if they received such benefits during the month in which they were hospitalized. | ||
| Feliciano v. Department of Transportation | 23–861 | April 30,2025 |
| American military reservists are entitled to differential pay whenever they are called to active duty during a national emergency, regardless of whether their service is substantially connected to the emergency. | ||
| Barnes v. Felix | 23–1239 | May 15,2025 |
| When evaluating excessive force claims, the inquiry into the reasonableness of police force requires analyzing the totality of the circumstances. | ||
| A.A.R.P. v. Trump | 24A1007 | May 16,2025 |
| United States government failed to provide adequate notice to detainees facing deportation under the Alien Enemies Act. | ||
| Kousisis v. United States | 23–909 | May 22,2025 |
| 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. | ||
| Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | 24–394 | May 22,2025 |
| The judgment was affirmed by an equally-divided court. | ||
| Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County | 23–975 | May 29,2025 |
| The D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Surface Transportation Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require consideration of indirect environmental effects. | ||
| BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman | 23–1259 | June 5,2025 |
| Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint. A party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment standard can apply. | ||
| CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. | 23–1201 | June 5,2025 |
| Plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the FSIA need not show “minimum contacts”; once an immunity exception applies and the state is properly served under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b), personal jurisdiction is established. | ||
| Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission | 24–154 | June 5,2025 |
| The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision denying Catholic Charities Bureau a tax exemption available to religious entities under Wisconsin law, because it was not "operated primarily for religious purposes" as it neither engaged in proselytization nor limited its charitable services to Catholics, violated the First Amendment. | ||
| Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos | 23–1141 | June 5,2025 |
| 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, PLCAA bars the lawsuit. | ||
| Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services | 23–1039 | June 5,2025 |
| Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of Title VII, a majority-group plaintiff must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." | ||
| Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis | 24–304 | June 5,2025 |
| Dismissed as improvidently granted. | ||
| A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools | 24–249 | June 12,2025 |
| Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. | ||
| Soto v. United States | 24–320 | June 12,2025 |
| The combat-related special compensation (CRSC) statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and limitations period. | ||
| Parrish v. United States | 24–275 | June 12,2025 |
| A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted. | ||
| Martin v. United States | 24–362 | June 12,2025 |
| (1) The law enforcement proviso overrides only the intentional-tort exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions. (2) The Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits. (3) On remand, the Eleventh Circuit should consider whether the discretionary function exception bars either the plaintiffs' negligent- or intentional-tort claims. | ||
| Commissioner v. Zuch | 24–416 | June 12,2025 |
| The Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve disputes between a taxpayer and the IRS when the IRS is no longer pursuing a levy. | ||
| Rivers v. Guerrero | 23–1345 | June 12,2025 |
| Once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a first-filed habeas petition, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a "second or successive application" properly subject to the requirements of §2244(b). | ||
| Perttu v. Richards | 23–1324 | June 18,2025 |
| Parties are entitled to a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim. | ||
| United States v. Skrmetti | 23–477 | June 18,2025 |
| Tennessee's law does not classify based on sex or transgender status. It satisfies rational basis review and is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Sixth Circuit decision affirmed. | ||
| Oklahoma v. EPA | 23–1067 | June 18,2025 |
| Tennessee's law does not classify based on sex or transgender status. It satisfies rational basis review and is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. | ||
| EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining | 23–1229 | June 18,2025 |
| The EPA's denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the "nationwide scope or effect" exception of the Clean Air Act, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit. | ||
| NRC v. Texas | 23–1300 | June 18,2025 |
| Only parties to the NRC's licensing proceedings are entitled to obtain judicial review of the Commission's licensing decisions. | ||