Volume 606 — United States Reports

terrorists—conduct Congress has condemned as “an incentive to commit acts of terror.” 132 Stat. 1143. Held: The PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involv- ing the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches.

Karyn Stanley worked as a frefghter for the City of Sanford, Florida, starting in 1999. Held: The judgment is affrmed. 83 F. 4th 1333, affrmed.

Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, 606 U.S. 100 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval under the Clean Air Act of California regulations requiring automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles.

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. 146 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute. District courts must independently determine the law's meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation. At issue in the case was the interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by the Federal Communications Commission.

Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. 185 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a district court considering whether to revoke a defendant's term of supervised release may not consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), which covers retribution vis-à-vis the defendant’s underlying criminal offense.

Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., 606 U.S. 226 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that retailers who would sell a new tobacco product if not for the Food and Drug Administration's denial order may seek judicial review of that order.

Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals denying deferral of removal in a withholding only proceeding is not a final order of removal. The 30-day filing deadline to challenge a final order of removal is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.

Gutierrez v. Saenz, 606 U.S. 305 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a person sentenced to death had standing to challenge Texas DNA-testing procedures under the Due Process Clause.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, 606 U.S. 357 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Medicaid Act does not give individuals an enforceable right to choose a specific healthcare provider.

Hewitt v. United States, 606 U.S. 419 (2025), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that all first-time 18 U.S.C. §924(c) offenders who appear for sentencing after the First Step Act's enactment date, including those whose previous §924(c) sentences have been vacated and who thus need to be resentenced, are subject to the Act’s revised penalties.

Texas, like many States, prohibits distributing sexually explicit content to children. Held: H. B. 1181 triggers, and survives, review under intermediate scru- tiny because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults. Pp. 470–499. (a) H. B. 1181 is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 470–495.

Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case about parents who wished to opt their children out of instruction involving LGBTQ-themed storybooks in a Maryland public school system. The Court held that the school district's policy of not permitting opt-outs violated the parents' right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research, 606 U.S. 656 (2025), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, concerning a challenge by Consumers' Research against the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund program. Consumers' Research argued that the program violated the nondelegation doctrine. The Supreme Court heard the case following contradictory rulings on the matter by the Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits.

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., 606 U.S. 748 (2025), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does not violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause. The defendant was the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which was initially Xavier Becerra, and later Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), is a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether lower-court judges have the authority to issue "universal injunctions" to block the enforcement of policies nationwide. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that universal injunctions exceed the judiciary power unless necessary to provide the formal plaintiff with "complete relief". Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that "complete relief" for a plaintiff was distinct from "universal relief" impacting all similar situations nationwide.

has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court. Other revisions may include adjustments to formatting, cap- tions, citation form, and any errant punctuation. The following additional edits were made: None