Volume 605 — United States Reports

Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy, 605 U.S. 1 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that 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, 605 U.S. 38 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that 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, 605 U.S. 73 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the "totality of the circumstances" test for evaluating excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment, previously established in Tennessee v. Garner (1985). Writing for a unanimous court, Associate Justice Elena Kagan rejected a "moment of the threat" test, used by some of the Circuit Courts, as excessively narrow within the scope of the Fourth Amendment.

A. A. R. P. et al. v. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. on application for injunction No. 24A1007. Held: The Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdic- tion. Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders that have “the practical effect of refusing an injunction.” Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 .

Kousisis v. United States, 605 U.S. 114 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case unanimously holding that 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.

2024 OK 53, 558 P. 3d 1, affrmed by an equally divided Court. James A. Campbell argued the cause for petitioners in No. 24–394. With him on the brief were Kristen K. Waggoner, Christopher P. Schandevel, Philip A. Sechler, Mark A. Lip- pelmann, John J. Bursch, Erin M. Hawley, Caroline C. Lindsay, Andrea R. Dill, and Cheryl Plaxico. Michael H. McGinley argued the cause for petitioner in No. 24–396.

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, 605 U.S. 168 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the National Environmental Policy Act only requires the environmental impact statements of government agencies to consider impacts that they have regulatory power over. Courts must defer to agencies on whether upstream and downstream industrial activity is within the scope of a project's approval.

Plaintiffs, who are victims and families of victims of terrorist attacks car- ried out by Hamas between 2001 and 2003, sued BLOM Bank SAL under the Anti-Terrorism Act for allegedly aiding… Held: 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 frst satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)'s liberal amendment standard can apply. Pp. 210–217.

Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. signed a satellite-leasing agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd., which is owned by the Republic of India for use by its Department of Space. Held: Personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity ex- ception applies and service is proper. The FSIA does not require proof of “minimum contacts” over and above the contacts already required by the Act's enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.

Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, 605 U.S. 238 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case that held the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision denying Catholic Charities Bureau a tax exemption available to religious entities under Wisconsin law violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court found that Wisconsin's denial was unconstitutional because it discriminated against religious organizations based on their religious activities.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bars certain lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of frearms. Held: Because Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the de- fendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, PLCAA bars the lawsuit. Pp. 291–299.

Petitioner Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services in various roles since 2004. Held: The Sixth Circuit's “background circumstances” rule—which re- quires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court's precedents. Pp. 308–313.

Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 2024 WL 489288 (Feb. 8, 2024) Noel J. Francisco argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Madeline W. Clark. Sopan Joshi argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in support of neither party. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Harris, Deputy Assist- ant Attorney General McArthur, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Charles W. Scarborough, and Jeffrey E. Sandberg.

A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, 605 U.S. 335 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that schoolchildren bringing Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts, rather than a higher standard.

Soto v. United States, 605 U.S. 360 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the combat-related special compensation (CRSC) statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and limitations period.

Parrish v. United States, 605 U.S. 376 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that 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.

On October 18, 2017, the FBI raided the wrong house in suburban Atlanta. Held: The law enforcement proviso in § 2680(h) overrides only the Page Proof Pending Publication intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary- function exception or other exceptions throughout § 2680. Pp. 403–408.

Commissioner v. Zuch, 605 U.S. 422 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the United States Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve disputes between a taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) when the IRS is no longer pursuing a levy.

Rivers v. Guerrero, 605 U.S. 443 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a first-filed habeas corpus petition, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a "second or successive application" properly subject to the requirements of §2244(b).

Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. 460 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that parties are entitled to a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim.

United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that a Tennessee state law banning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency, 605 U.S. 609 (2025), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed where lawsuits challenging certain EPA actions must be filed. The Court held that when the EPA disapproves a state implementation plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act, that decision is a local or regional action, not a national one. As a result, challenges must be brought in the appropriate regional federal appeals courts, rather than exclusively in the D.C. Circuit.

EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, 605 U.S. 627 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Environmental Protection Agency'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.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, 605 U.S. 665 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that only parties to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing proceedings are entitled to obtain judicial review of the Commission's licensing decisions.