* * *
Case Name | Citation | Form of Comparison / Level of Reliance | Opinion | Defensive? | Plain Meaning? |
Abbott v. Perez | 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable results + Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | Yes | No |
Abbott v. Perez* | 138 S. Ct. 2305 (2018) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl | 570 U.S. 637 (2013) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl* | 570 U.S. 637 (2013) | Policy / Undesirable results / Primary reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | Yes |
Advoc. Health Care Network v. Stapleton* | 581 U.S. 468 (2017) | Policy / Facts about the world / Some reliance | Concurrence(Sotomayor) | No | Yes |
Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. | 141 S. Ct. 2485 (2021) | Policy / Facts about the world / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. | 141 S. Ct. 2485 (2021) | Policy / Undesirable results + Purpose / Primary reliance | Per curiam | No | No |
Ala. Dep’t of Revenue v. CSX Transp., Inc. | 575 U.S. 21 (2015) | Policy / Undesirable results + Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | No |
Allen v. Siebert | 552 U.S. 3 (2007) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Per curiam | No | No |
Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good | 555 U.S. 70 (2008) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Am. Broad. Cos. v. Aereo, Inc. | 573 U.S. 431 (2014) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Scalia) | No | Yes |
Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest. | 570 U.S. 228 (2013) | Policy / Undesirable results / Primary reliance | Dissent (Kagan) | No | No |
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. | 547 U.S. 451 (2006) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Breyer) | No | No |
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. | 547 U.S. 451 (2006) | Administrability / Unworkability / Minimal reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Apple Inc. v. Pepper | 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Majority (Kavanaugh) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Apple Inc. v. Pepper | 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Dissent (Gorsuch) | Yes | No |
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. | 546 U.S. 500 (2006) | Administrability / Judicial Resources / Primary reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.* | 570 U.S. 1 (2013) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Arizona v. United States | 567 U.S. 387 (2012) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Scalia) | Yes | No |
Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy* | 548 U.S. 291 (2006) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Artis v. District of Columbia | 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Artis v. District of Columbia* | 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018) | Both policy and administrability / Absurd results + Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Gorsuch) | No | No |
Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County* | 563 U.S. 110 (2011) | Both policy and administrability / Absurd results + Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Astrue v. Ratliff | 560 U.S. 586 (2010) | Policy / Purpose / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Sotomayor) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen | 556 U.S. 701 (2009) | Policy / Beneficial Results / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | Yes |
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion | 563 U.S. 333 (2011) | Policy / Undesirable results + Facts about the world / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | Yes | No |
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion * | 563 U.S. 333 (2011) | Policy / Undesirable results + Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | No |
Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. | 571 U.S. 49 (2013) | Policy / Fairness (settled expectations) / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Yes |
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Christian | 140 S. Ct. 1335 (2020) | Policy / Undesirable results / Minimal reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Gorsuch) | Yes | No |
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Christian | 140 S. Ct. 1335 (2020) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Alito) | No | No |
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Christian | 140 S. Ct. 1335 (2020) | Policy / Purpose + Facts about the world / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | Yes | No |
Azar v. Allina Health Servs.* | 139 S. Ct. 1804 (2019) | Policy / Beneficial results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Gorsuch) | Yes | No |
Azar v. Allina Health Servs.* | 139 S. Ct. 1804 (2019) | Administrability / Resources + Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Babb v. Wilkie | 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2020) | Both policy and administrability / Resources + Fairness (settled expectations) / Primary reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | No |
Badgerow v. Walters | 142 S. Ct. 1310 (2022) | Both policy and administrability / Absurd results + Unworkability (difficult) / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Badgerow v. Walters | 142 S. Ct. 1310 (2022) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Banister v. Davis | 140 S. Ct. 1698 (2020) | Administrability / Resources / Minimal reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Banister v. Davis* | 140 S. Ct. 1698 (2020) | Administrability / Resources / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Alito) | Yes | No |
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Caulkett | 575 U.S. 790 (2015) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | No |
Barber v. Thomas | 560 U.S. 474 (2010) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | Yes |
Bartlett v. Strickland | 556 U.S. 1 (2009) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | Yes |
Bartlett v. Strickland | 556 U.S. 1 (2009) | Policy / Purpose + Facts about the world / Primary reliance | Dissent (Souter) | No | Yes |
Barton v. Barr* | 140 S. Ct. 1442 (2020) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Becerra v. Empire Health Found. | 142 S. Ct. 2354 (2022) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Dissent (Kavanaugh) | No | No |
Becerra v. Empire Health Found.* | 142 S. Ct. 2354 (2022) | Both administrability and policy / Undesirable results + Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Beck v. PACE Int’l Union | 551 U.S. 96 (2007) | Policy / Fairness / Minimal reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | No |
Begay v. United States | 553 U.S. 137 (2008) | Policy / Facts about the world / Primary reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Biden v. Missouri | 142 S. Ct. 647 (2022) | Policy / Beneficial results / Some reliance | Per curiam | No | No |
Biden v. Missouri | 142 S. Ct. 647 (2022) | Policy / Undesirable results / Primary reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
Biden v. Texas | 142 S. Ct. 2528 (2022) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Biden v. Texas | 142 S. Ct. 2528 (2022) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Barrett) | No | No |
Biden v. Texas | 142 S. Ct. 2528 (2022) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Biestek v. Berryhill | 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Biestek v. Berryhill | 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) | Both policy and administrability / Fairness + Unworkability / Primary reliance | Dissent (Gorsuch) | No | No |
Bilski v. Kappos | 561 U.S. 593 (2010) | Policy / Absurd results / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Stevens) | No | No |
Bloate v. United States | 559 U.S. 196 (2010) | Policy / Purpose / Minimal reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Bloate v. United States | 559 U.S. 196 (2010) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Loos | 139 S. Ct. 893 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Dissent (Gorsuch) | No | Yes |
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co.* | 581 U.S. 170 (2017) | Both policy and administrability / Beneficial Results + Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Bond v. United States* | 572 U.S. 844 (2014) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | Yes |
Borden v. United States | 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | Yes |
Borden v. United States | 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Kavanaugh) | No | Yes |
Bostock v. Clayton County | 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Bowles v. Russell | 551 U.S. 205 (2007) | Policy / Beneficial results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | No |
Bowles v. Russell | 551 U.S. 205 (2007) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Souter) | No | No |
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor of Balt. | 141 S. Ct. 1532 (2021) | Policy / Undesirable results / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Brandt Revocable Tr. v. United States | 572 U.S. 93 (2014) | Policy / Undesirable results + Fairness / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Brnovich v. Democratic Nat’l Comm. | 141 S. Ct. 2321 (2021) | Policy / Undesirable results / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Brnovich v. Democratic Nat’l Comm. | 141 S. Ct. 2321 (2021) | Policy / Undesirable results / Primary reliance | Dissent (Kagan) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Brown v. Plata | 563 U.S. 493 (2011) | Policy / Undesirable results / Primary reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Brown v. Plata | 563 U.S. 493 (2011) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Primary reliance | Dissent (Scalia) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Brown v. Plata* | 563 U.S. 493 (2011) | Policy / Undesirable results / Primary reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
Brownback v. King | 141 S. Ct. 740 (2021) | Both policy and administrability / Fairness + Resources / Some reliance | Concurrence(Sotomayor) | No | No |
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC* | 562 U.S. 223 (2011) | Policy / Undesirable results / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank | 575 U.S. 496 (2015) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Bullock v. BankChampaign | 569 U.S. 267 (2013) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Minimal reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White | 548 U.S. 53 (2006) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White | 548 U.S. 53 (2006) | Both policy and administrability / Absurd results + Unworkability / Some reliance | Concurrence(Alito) | Yes | Yes |
Burrage v. United States* | 571 U.S. 204 (2014) | Administrability / Unworkability / Minimal reliance | Majority (Scalia) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. | 573 U.S. 682 (2014) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. | 573 U.S. 682 (2014) | Policy / Facts about the world + Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Cal. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. ANZ Secs., Inc. | 582 U.S. 497 (2017) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable consequences + Resources / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Cal. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. ANZ Secs., Inc.* | 582 U.S. 497 (2017) | Policy / Absurd results / Primary reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | Yes |
Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF BIO, Inc. | 556 U.S. 635 (2009) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Breyer) | No | No |
Carr v. United States* | 560 U.S. 438 (2010) | Policy / Absurd results / Primary reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice* | 571 U.S. 377 (2014) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable consequences + Purpose + Unworkability / Primary reliance | Dissent (Kennedy) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Chamber of Com. of the U.S. v. Whiting* | 563 U.S. 582 (2011) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Chamber of Com. of the U.S. v. Whiting* | 563 U.S. 582 (2011) | Policy / Undesirable consequences + Purpose / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Chambers v. United States | 555 U.S. 122 (2009) | Policy / Facts about the world / Primary reliance | Majority (Breyer) | Yes | Yes |
Chavez-Meza v. United States | 138 S. Ct. 1959 (2018) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Chavez-Meza v. United States | 138 S. Ct. 1959 (2018) | Administrability / Resources / Primary reliance | Dissent (Kennedy) | No | No |
China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh | 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | No |
China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh | 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Concurrence(Sotomayor) | Yes | No |
Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. | 567 U.S. 142 (2012) | Policy / Fairness (settled) / Primary reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Cigna Corp. v. Amara | 563 U.S. 421 (2011) | Both policy and administrability / Purpose + Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
City of Arlington v. FCC | 569 U.S. 290 (2013) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | No |
City of Chicago v. Fulton | 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021) | Policy / Facts about the world + Purpose / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Sotomayor) | No | No |
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Se. Alaska Conservation Council | 557 U.S. 261 (2009) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Se. Alaska Conservation Council* | 557 U.S. 261 (2009) | Policy / Beneficial consequences + Purpose / Some reliance | Concurrence(Breyer) | No | No |
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. | 575 U.S. 632 (2015) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Concepcion v. United States | 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Kavanaugh) | No | No |
Conkright v. Frommert | 559 U.S. 506 (2010) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Conkright v. Frommert | 559 U.S. 506 (2010) | Both policy and administrability / Unworkability + Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Corley v. United States* | 556 U.S. 303 (2009) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Souter) | Yes | No |
County of Maui v. Haw. Wildlife Fund | 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020) | Policy / Beneficial consequences / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
County of Maui v. Haw. Wildlife Fund* | 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
County of Maui v. Haw. Wildlife Fund* | 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | Yes |
Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t | 555 U.S. 271 (2009) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Souter) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t | 555 U.S. 271 (2009) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Concurrence(Alito) | No | No |
Credit Suisse Secs. LLC v. Billing (2007) | 551 U.S. 264 (2007) | Policy / Beneficial consequences / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Stevens) | No | No |
Credit Suisse Secs. LLC v. Simmonds (2011)* | 566 U.S. 221 (2012) | Policy / Fairness + Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | No |
CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC* | 578 U.S. 419 (2016) | Policy / Absurd results / Primary reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ala. Dep’t of Revenue | 562 U.S. 277 (2011) | Policy / Undesirable Consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | No |
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ga. State Bd. of Equalization* | 552 U.S. 9 (2007) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride | 564 U.S. 685 (2011) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | Yes |
Cullen v. Pinholster | 563 U.S. 170 (2011) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. | 142 S. Ct. 1562 (2022) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass’n | 557 U.S. 519 (2009) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | No |
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee* | 579 U.S. 261 (2016) | Policy / Fairness + Purpose + / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Alito) | No | No |
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee* | 579 U.S. 261 (2016) | Policy / Purpose + / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. | 580 U.S. 451 (2017) | Both policy and administrability / Unworkability + Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Dada v. Mukasey | 554 U.S. 1 (2008) | Policy / Facts about the world + Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Dean v. United States | 556 U.S. 568 (2009) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Stevens) | No | No |
Dean v. United States* | 556 U.S. 568 (2009) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Dep’t of Com. v. New York | 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable consequences + Resources / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Alito) | No | Yes |
Dep’t of Com. v. New York | 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Thomas) | No | No |
Dep’t of Com. v. New York | 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Descamps v. United States | 570 U.S. 254 (2013) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | Yes |
Descamps v. United States | 570 U.S. 254 (2013) | Both policy and administrability / Purpose + Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Descamps v. United States | 570 U.S. 254 (2013) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Concurrence(Kennedy) | No | No |
DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. | 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Alito) | No | No |
DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. | 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Dillon v. United States | 560 U.S. 817 (2010) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Stevens) | No | No |
Direct Mktg. Ass’n v. Brohl | 575 U.S. 1 (2015) | Administrability / Resources / Minimal reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | No |
Direct Mktg. Ass’n v. Brohl | 575 U.S. 1 (2015) | Policy / Fairness / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Kennedy) | No | No |
DirectTV, Inc. v. Imburgia | 577 U.S. 47 (2015) | Policy / Fairness + Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Dolan v. United States | 560 U.S. 605 (2010) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | Yes |
Dorsey v. United States* | 567 U.S. 260 (2012) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Dutra Grp. v. Batterton | 139 S. Ct. 2275 (2019) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Dutra Grp. v. Batterton | 139 S. Ct. 2275 (2019) | Both policy and administrability / Absurd results + Beneficial consequences / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | Yes | No |
Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury | 567 U.S. 1 (2012) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | Yes |
Elonis v. United States | 575 U.S. 723 (2015) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Alito) | No | No |
Elonis v. United States | 575 U.S. 723 (2015) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | No |
Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh | 547 U.S. 677 (2006) | Administrability / Fairness + Beneficial consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro | 584 U.S. 79 (2016) | Policy / Fairness (settled) / Primary reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. | 572 U.S. 489 (2014) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Scalia) | No | Yes |
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis | 584 U.S. 497 (2018) | Policy / Fairness / Primary reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid* | 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. | 556 U.S. 502 (2009) | Policy / Fairness (settled) / Primary reliance | Dissent (Stevens) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Fed. Aviation Admin. v. Cooper* | 566 U.S. 284 (2012) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Fed. Energy Regul. Comm. v. Elec. Power Supply Ass’n* | 577 U.S. 260 (2016) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki | 552 U.S. 389 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki | 552 U.S. 389 (2008) | Administrability / Unworkability / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp | 141 S. Ct. 703 (2021) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales | 548 U.S. 30 (2006) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Stevens) | No | No |
Filarksy v. Delia | 566 U.S. 377 (2012) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable consequences + Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Picadilly Cafeterias, Inc.* | 554 U.S. 33 (2008) | Policy / Purpose / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Flores-Figueroa v. United States | 556 U.S. 646 (2009) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Concurrence (Alito) | No | No |
Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader Media | 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Breyer) | No | No |
Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A. | 557 U.S. 230 (2009) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Stevens) | No | Yes |
Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A.* | 557 U.S. 230 (2009) | Policy / Facts about the world + Beneficial results / Some reliance | Dissent (Souter) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Fourth Est. Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.Com, LLC | 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019) | Administrability / Unworkability / Minimal reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | Yes | No |
Fowler v. United States | 563 U.S. 668 (2011) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Fowler v. United States | 563 U.S. 668 (2011) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Concurrence(Scalia) | No | Yes |
Fowler v. United States* | 563 U.S. 668 (2011) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | Yes |
Fox v. Vice | 563 U.S. 826 (2011) | Policy / Absurd results + Fairness / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Freeman v. United States | 564 U.S. 522 (2011) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Roberts) | No | No |
FTC v. Actavis, Inc. | 570 U.S. 136 (2013) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
FTC v. Actavis, Inc. | 570 U.S. 136 (2013) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Roberts) | No | No |
Gallardo v. Marstiller* | 142 S. Ct. 1751 (2022) | Policy / Absurd results + Purpose / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Garland v. Gonzalez* | 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022) | Both policy and administrability / Fairness + Resources / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Sotomayor) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Garland v. Gonzalez* | 142 S. Ct. 2057 (2022) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp. | 574 U.S. 405 (2015) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | Yes |
Georgia v. Public.Resource.org, Inc. | 140 S. Ct. 1498 (2020) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Georgia v. Public.Resource.org, Inc. | 140 S. Ct. 1498 (2020) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable consequences + Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | Yes | No |
Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. | 577 U.S. 312 (2016) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. | 577 U.S. 312 (2016) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. | 577 U.S. 312 (2016) | Administrability / Resources / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Breyer) | No | No |
Gonzales v. Carhart | 550 U.S. 124 (2007) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Gonzalez v. Thaler | 565 U.S. 134 (2012) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | Yes |
Gonzalez v. Thaler | 565 U.S. 134 (2012) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Scalia) | Yes | No |
Gonzalez v. United States | 553 U.S. 242 (2008) | Policy / Beneficial consequences / Primary reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Gonzalez v. United States | 553 U.S. 242 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | No |
Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc. | 141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | No |
Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson* | 559 U.S. 280 (2010) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Green v. Brennan | 578 U.S. 547 (2016) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Green v. Brennan | 578 U.S. 547 (2016) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Concurrence(Alito) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Greenlaw v. United States | 544 U.S. 237 (2008) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | Yes | Yes |
Greenlaw v. United States* | 544 U.S. 237 (2008) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. | 557 U.S. 167 (2009) | Administrability / Unworkability / Minimal reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. | 557 U.S. 167 (2009) | Policy / Facts about the world / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr | 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) | Policy / Purpose / Minimal reliance | Majority (Breyer) | Yes | No |
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr | 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | Yes |
Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. | 552 U.S. 576 (2008) | Administrability / Resources / Minimal reliance | Majority (Souter) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Hall v. United States * | 566 U.S. 506 (2012) | Policy / Absurd results + Purpose / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. | 573 U.S. 258 (2014) | Policy / Beneficial Results / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Ginsburg) | Yes | No |
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. | 573 U.S. 258 (2014) | Policy / Facts about the world + Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Thomas) | No | No |
Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.* | 579 U.S. 93 (2016) | Policy / Facts about the world + Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Concurrence(Breyer) | No | No |
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld | 548 U.S. 557 (2006) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Concurrence (Breyer) | Yes | No |
Hamilton v. Lanning* | 560 U.S. 505 (2010) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Yes |
Harbison v. Bell | 556 U.S. 180 (2009) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Scalia) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Harbison v. Bell | 556 U.S. 180 (2009) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Stevens) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Harrington v. Richter | 562 U.S. 86 (2010) | Administrability / Resources / Minimal reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | Yes |
Hertz Corp. v. Friend | 559 U.S. 77 (2010) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Primary reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Holland v. Florida | 560 U.S. 631 (2010) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Scalia) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Holland v. Florida | 560 U.S. 631 (2010) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Concurrence(Alito) | No | No |
Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refin., LLC v. Renewable Fuels Ass’n | 141 S. Ct. 2172 (2021) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Majority (Gorsuch) | Yes | Yes |
Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refin., LLC v. Renewable Fuels Ass’n | 141 S. Ct. 2172 (2021) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Barrett) | Yes | Yes |
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson* | 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | Yes |
Horne v. Dep’t of Agric.* | 569 U.S. 513 (2013) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Hughes v. United States | 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Hughes v. United States | 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable consequences + Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Dissent (Roberts) | No | No |
Hughes v. United States | 138 S. Ct. 1765 (2018) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Sotomayor) | No | No |
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Inst. | 138 S. Ct. 1833 (2018) | Policy / Facts about the world + Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Iancu v. Brunetti | 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Ill. Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc. | 547 U.S. 28 (2006) | Policy / Facts about the world / Some reliance | Majority (Stevens) | No | No |
Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. | 581 U.S. 360 (2017) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Jam v. Int’l Fin. Corp. | 139 S. Ct. 759 (2019) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable consequences + Purpose + Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
James v. United States* | 550 U.S. 192 (2007) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Dissent (Scalia) | No | Yes |
Janus Cap. Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders | 564 U.S. 135 (2011) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | Yes |
Jennings v. Rodriguez | 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Yes |
Jennings v. Rodriguez | 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018) | Policy / Fairness / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA | 559 U.S. 573 (2010) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Kennedy) | No | Yes |
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC | 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC | 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Thomas) | No | No |
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC | 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Concurrence(Gorsuch) | No | No |
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC* | 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | Yes | No |
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC* | 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) | Policy / Undesirable consequences + Purpose / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Alito) | No | No |
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States | 552 U.S. 130 (2008) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez | 142 S. Ct. 1827 (2022) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Concurrence(Thomas) | No | No |
Johnson v. Guzman-Chavez* | 141 S. Ct. 2271 (2021) | Policy / Beneficial consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Johnson v. Guzman-Chavez* | 141 S. Ct. 2271 (2021) | Policy / Facts about the world / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | Yes |
Johnson v. United States | 559 U.S. 133 (2010) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
Johnson v. Williams | 568 U.S. 289 (2013) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Concurrence(Scalia) | No | No |
Jones v. Harris Assocs. L.P. | 559 U.S. 335 (2010) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Judulang v. Holder | 565 U.S. 42 (2011) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Kansas v. Garcia | 140 S.Ct. 791 (2020) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Breyer) | No | No |
Kansas v. Garcia | 140 S.Ct. 791 (2020) | Derogation-resembling / Term of Art / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. | 563 U.S. 1 (2011) | Policy / Facts about the world + Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp. | 561 U.S. 89 (2010) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp.* | 561 U.S. 89 (2010) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Kawashima v. Holder | 565 U.S. 478 (2012) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter* | 575 U.S. 650 (2015) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Kennedy v. Plan Adm’r for DuPont Savs. & Inv. Plan | 555 U.S. 285 (2009) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Souter) | No | No |
Kimble v. Marvel Ent., LLC | 576 U.S. 446 (2015) | Both policy and administrability / Unworkability + Fairness (settled interests) / Primary reliance | Majority (Kagan) | Yes | No |
Kimble v. Marvel Ent., LLC | 576 U.S. 446 (2015) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
Kimbrough v. United States | 552 U.S. 85 (2007) | Policy / Fairness / Minimal reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | Yes | Yes |
Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Clark | 137 S.Ct. 1421 (2017) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | Yes |
King v. Burwell* | 576 U.S. 473 (2015) | Policy / Undesirable consequences + Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.* | 569 U.S. 108 (2013) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Majority (Roberts) | Yes | No |
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | 579 U.S. 197 (2016) | Both policy and administrability / Beneficial consequences + Unworkability (difficult) / Primary reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | 568 U.S. 519 (2013) | Policy / Undesirable consequences + Fairness (settled interests) / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Kisor v. Wilkie | 139 S.Ct. 2400 (2019) | Both policy and administrability / Beneficial consequences + Unworkability / Primary reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Kisor v. Wilkie | 139 S.Ct. 2400 (2019) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable consequences + Unworkability / Primary reliance | Concurrence(Gorsuch) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Knight v. Comm’r | 552 U.S. 181 (2008) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Ky. Ret. Sys. v. EEOC | 554 U.S. 135 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Lagos v. United States* | 138 S.Ct. 1684 (2018) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling* | 138 S.Ct. 1752 (2018) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela | 139 S.Ct. 1407 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela | 139 S.Ct. 1407 (2019) | Policy / Fairness / Primary reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela | 139 S.Ct. 1407 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Kagan) | No | No |
LaRue v. De Wolff, Boberb & Assocs., Inc. | 552 U.S. 248 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Concurrence (Roberts) | No | No |
Lawrence v. Florida | 549 U.S. 327 (2007) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Thomas) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Lawrence v. Florida | 549 U.S. 327 (2007) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Lawson v. FMR LLC | 571 U.S. 429 (2014) | Policy / Absurd results / Primary reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. | 550 U.S. 618 (2007) | Policy / Facts about the world / Primary reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc. | 551 U.S. 877 (2007) | Policy / Facts about the world / Primary reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp. | 580 U.S. 140 (2017) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | Yes |
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc. | 572 U.S. 915 (2014) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Limtiaco v. Camacho* | 549 U.S. 483 (2007) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Souter) | No | No |
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania | 140 S. Ct. 2367 (2020) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | Yes |
Liu v. SEC* | 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable consequences + Unworkability / Primary reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | No |
Logan v. United States* | 552 U.S. 23 (2007) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Lorenzo v. SEC* | 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach | 568 U.S. 115 (2013) | Administrability / Resources / Minimal reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | Yes |
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach* | 568 U.S. 115 (2013) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | Yes |
Luna Torres v. Lynch | 578 U.S. 452 (2016) | Policy / Absurd results + Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Mac’s Shell Serv., Inc. v. Shell Oil Prods. Co.* | 559 U.S. 175 (2010) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Magwood v. Patterson | 561 U.S. 320 (2010) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Magwood v. Patterson | 561 U.S. 320 (2010) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Kennedy) | No | No |
Maracich v. Spears | 570 U.S. 48 (2013) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable consequences + Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Maracich v. Spears* | 570 U.S. 48 (2013) | Both policy and administrability / Purpose + Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Marietta Mem’l Hosp. Emp. Health Benefit Plan v. Davita Inc. | 142 S. Ct. 1968 (2022) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Kavanaugh) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Marietta Mem’l Hosp. Emp. Health Benefit Plan v. Davita Inc. | 142 S. Ct. 1968 (2022) | Policy / Facts about the world / Primary reliance | Dissent (Kagan) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Marinello v. United States | 584 U.S. 1 (2018) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Marinello v. United States* | 584 U.S. 1 (2018) | Policy / Fairness + Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Maslenjak v. United States* | 582 U.S. 335 (2017) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak* | 567 U.S. 209 (2012) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Mathis v. United States | 579 U.S. 500 (2016) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Mathis v. United States* | 579 U.S. 500 (2016) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Mathis v. United States* | 579 U.S. 500 (2016) | Policy / Absurd results + Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
Mathis v. United States* | 579 U.S. 500 (2016) | Policy / Fairness + Absurd results / Some reliance | Concurrence (Kennedy) | No | No |
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc. | 566 U.S. 66 (2012) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
McDonough v. Smith | 588 U.S. 109 (2019) | Both policy and administrability / Fairness + Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | No |
McGirt v. Oklahoma | 591 U.S. 894 (2020) | Policy / Fairness / Minimal reliance | Majority (Gorsuch) | Yes | Yes |
McGirt v. Oklahoma | 591 U.S. 894 (2020) | Administrability / Resources + Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Roberts) | No | No |
McNeill v. United States* | 563 U.S. 816 (2011) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
McQuiggin v. Perkins | 569 U.S. 383 (2013) | Policy / Absurd results + Fairness / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | Yes | No |
McQuiggin v. Perkins | 569 U.S. 383 (2013) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Dissent (Scalia) | Yes | No |
Me. Cmty. Health Options v. United States | 140 S. Ct. 1308 (2020) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Fam. Ventures, LLC | 571 U.S. 191 (2014) | Policy / Undesirable consequences + Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Mellouli v. Lynch * | 575 U.S. 798 (2015) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht | 139 S. Ct. 1668 (2019) | Policy / Beneficial consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning | 578 U.S. 374 (2015) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | Yes |
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning | 578 U.S. 374 (2015) | Administrability / Unworkability / Minimal reliance | Concurrence (Thomas) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty. | 572 U.S. 782 (2014) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | No |
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty.* | 572 U.S. 782 (2014) | Policy / Absurd results + Fairness / Primary reliance | Concurrence (Sotomayor) | Yes | No |
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker | 582 U.S. 23 (2017) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson | 581 U.S. 224 (2017) | Policy / Beneficial consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson | 581 U.S. 224 (2017) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | Yes | No |
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States | 559 U.S. 229 (2010) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Milner v. Dep’t of the Navy | 562 U.S. 562 (2011) | Policy / Fairness (settled interests) / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Ministry of Def. & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi | 556 U.S. 366 (2009) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Partial concurring, Partial dissenting(Kennedy) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Miss. ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.* | 571 U.S. 161 (2014) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter | 558 U.S. 100 (2009) | Administrability / Resources / Primary reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Moncrieffe v. Holder* | 569 U.S. 184 (2013) | Both policy and administrability / Absurd results + Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | Yes |
Moncrieffe v. Holder* | 569 U.S. 184 (2013) | Policy / Fairness + Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Mont v. United States | 139 S. Ct. 1826 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Mont v. United States* | 139 S. Ct. 1826 (2019) | Policy / Fairness + Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Montanile v. Bd. of Trs. of the Nat’l Elevator Indus. Health Benefit Plan | 577 U.S. 136 (2016) | Policy / Absurd results / Primary reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Morgan Stanley Cap. Grp. Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 | 554 U.S. 527 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | Yes |
Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd. | 561 U.S. 247 (2010) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd.* | 561 U.S. 247 (2010) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Concurrence (Stevens) | Yes | No |
Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n* | 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018) | Administrability / Unworkability / Minimal reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Yes |
Murphy v. Smith* | 138 S. Ct. 784 (2018) | Policy / Facts about the world / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | Yes |
Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett* | 570 U.S. 472 (2013) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
N.C. State Bd. v. FTC | 574 U.S. 494 (2015) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
N.C. State Bd. v. FTC | 574 U.S. 494 (2015) | Both policy and administrability / Absurd results + Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
Nance v. Ward | 142 S. Ct. 2214 (2022) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Nasrallah v. Barr | 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020) | Policy / Fairness (settled interests) / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | Yes |
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. | 572 U.S. 898 (2014) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Negusie v. Holder | 555 U.S. 511 (2009) | Both policy and administrability / Fairness + Resources / Primary reliance | Concurrence (Scalia) | Yes | No |
Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe | 141 S. Ct. 1931 (2021) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Partial concurrence (Sotomayor) | Yes | Yes |
Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe | 141 S. Ct. 1931 (2021) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | No |
Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe* | 141 S. Ct. 1931 (2021) | Both policy and administrability / Unworkability (difficult) + Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Concurrence (Gorsuch) | No | No |
New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB* | 560 U.S. 674 (2010) | Policy / Purpose / Primary reliance | Dissent (Kennedy) | No | Plain meaning corroborates practical |
NFIB v. Dep’t of Lab. | 142 S. Ct. 661 (2022) | Policy / Undesirable consequences/ Some reliance | Concurrence (Gorsuch) | No | No |
NFIB v. Dep’t of Lab. | 142 S. Ct. 661 (2022) | Policy / Facts about the world + Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Per curiam | No | No |
NFIB v. Dep’t of Lab. | 142 S. Ct. 661 (2022) | Policy / Facts about the world + Beneficial consequences / Primary reliance | Joint Dissent | Yes | No |
Nielson v. Preap | 139 S. Ct. 954 (2019) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Concurrence (Kavanaugh) | No | No |
Nielson v. Preap* | 139 S. Ct. 954 (2019) | Policy / Facts about the world + Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Nielson v. Preap* | 139 S. Ct. 954 (2019) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Niz-Chavez v. Garland | 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Majority (Gorsuch) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Niz-Chavez v. Garland | 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) | Both policy and administrability / Absurd results + Resources / Some reliance | Dissent (Kavanaugh) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Sorrell | 549 U.S. 158 (2007) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
NRG Power Mktg., LLC v. Me. Pub. Utils. Comm’n | 558 U.S. 165 (2010) | Policy / Purpose + Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Ocasio v. United States | 578 U.S. 282 (2016) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | Yes | No |
Ocasio v. United States | 578 U.S. 282 (2016) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | Yes |
Ocasio v. United States | 578 U.S. 282 (2016) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Primary reliance | Concurrence (Breyer) | No | No |
Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund | 575 U.S. 175 (2015) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc.* | 575 U.S. 373 (2015) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Dissent (Scalia) | No | No |
Osborn v. Haley | 549 U.S. 225 (2007) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Breyer) | No | Yes |
Pac. Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid | 565 U.S. 207 (2012) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Concurrence (Scalia) | No | Yes |
Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc’ns, Inc. | 555 U.S. 438 (2009) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Panetti v. Quarterman | 551 U.S. 930 (2007) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Paroline v. United States | 572 U.S. 434 (2014) | Policy / Beneficial consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | Yes |
Paroline v. United States | 572 U.S. 434 (2014) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | Yes |
Patel v. Garland* | 142 S. Ct. 1614 (2022) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Gorsuch) | No | No |
Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn | 559 U.S. 542 (2010) | Both policy and administrability / Purpose + Unworkability / Primary reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Pereida v. Wilkinson* | 141 S. Ct. 754 (2021) | Administrability / Fairness + Resources / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | Yes |
Pereira v. Sessions | 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
Pereira v. Sessions* | 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | Yes |
Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n | 575 U.S. 92 (2015) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Concurrence (Scalia) | No | No |
Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. | 582 U.S. 420 (2017) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. | 582 U.S. 420 (2017) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Gorsuch) | No | No |
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. | 572 U.S. 663 (2014) | Policy / Fairness / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing* | 564 U.S. 604 (2011) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Tr. | 579 U.S. 115 (2016) | Policy / Facts about the world / Primary reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Quarles v. United States* | 139 S. Ct. 1872 (2019) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Majority (Kavanaugh) | No | Yes |
Ransom v. FIA Card Servs., N.A* | 562 U.S. 61 (2011) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Rapanos v. United States | 547 U.S. 715 (2006) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Plurality (Scalia) | No | Yes |
Rapanos v. United States | 547 U.S. 715 (2006) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Stevens) | No | No |
Rapanos v. United States | 547 U.S. 715 (2006) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Concurrence (Kennedy) | No | Yes |
Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of the Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs | 571 U.S. 177 (2014) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | Yes | No |
Rehaif v. United States | 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) | Both policy and administrability / Resources + Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
Rehaif v. United States* | 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Rehberg v. Paulk | 566 U.S. 356 (2012) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Republic of Iraq v. Beaty* | 556 U.S. 848 (2009) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Scalia) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Republic of Sudan v. Harrison* | 139 S. Ct. 1048 (2019) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Republic of Sudan v. Harrison* | 139 S. Ct. 1048 (2019) | Policy / Facts about the world / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | No |
Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS | 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019) | Policy / beneficial consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS | 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019) | Policy / beneficial consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Ricci v. DeStefano | 557 U.S. 557 (2009) | Policy / Fairness (settled interests) / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Ricci v. DeStefano | 557 U.S. 557 (2009) | Policy / Facts about the world / Primary reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | Yes | No |
Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff* | 553 U.S. 571 (2008) | Administrability / Unworkability / Minimal reliance | Majority (Alito) | Yes | No |
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. | 552 U.S. 312 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | Yes |
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.* | 552 U.S. 312 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Riley v. Kennedy | 553 U.S. 406 (2008) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Riley v. Kennedy | 553 U.S. 406 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Stevens) | No | No |
Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC | 140 S. Ct. 582 (2020) | Administrability / Resources / Minimal reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | Yes | Yes |
RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Eur. Cmty.* | 579 U.S. 325 (2016) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Robers v. United States | 572 U.S. 639 (2014) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Minimal reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc. | 566 U.S. 93 (2012) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States* | 549 U.S. 457 (2007) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | No |
Roper v. Weaver | 550 U.S. 598 (2007) | Policy / Fairness / Primary reliance | Per curiam | No | No |
Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n* | 141 S. Ct. 474 (2020) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Concurrence (Thomas) | No | Yes |
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr* | 551 U.S. 47 (2007) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Souter) | Yes | Yes |
Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr* | 551 U.S. 47 (2007) | Policy / Fairness / Primary reliance | Concurrence (Stevens) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp. | 571 U.S. 220 (2014) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | Yes |
SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu* | 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC | 580 U.S. 328 (2017) | Policy / Fairness / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk | 563 U.S. 401 (2011) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Schwab v. Reilly | 560 U.S. 770 (2010) | Policy / Fairness + Purpose / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio | 573 U.S. 41 (2014) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Plurality (Kagan) | No | Yes |
Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio | 573 U.S. 41 (2014) | Administrability / Unworkability / Minimal reliance | Concurrence (Roberts) | No | No |
Setser v. United States | 566 U.S. 231 (2012) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Shaw v. United States | 580 U.S. 63 (2016) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez* | 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | No |
Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez* | 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022) | Policy / Fairness / Primary reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Shinseki v. Sanders | 556 U.S. 396 (2009) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Shoop v. Twyford | 142 S. Ct. 2037 (2022) | Both policy and administrability / Resources + Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Simmons v. Himmelreich* | 578 U.S. 621 (2016) | Policy / Absurd results + Purpose / Minimal reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Smith v. Berryhill* | 139 S. Ct. 1765 (2019) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Majority(Sotomayor) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Sossamon v. Texas | 563 U.S. 277 (2011) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Dissent (Sotomayor) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Spears v. United States * | 555 U.S. 261 (2009) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Per curiam | No | No |
Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. | 580 U.S. 405 (2017) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | No |
Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. | 580 U.S. 405 (2017) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Staub v. Proctor Hosp. | 562 U.S. 411 (2011) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | Yes |
Stokeling v. United States | 139 S. Ct. 544 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | No |
Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Sci.-Atlanta, Inc. | 552 U.S. 148 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | Yes | No |
Sturgeon v. Frost | 577 U.S. 424 (2016) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Sturgeon v. Frost | 587 U.S. 28 (2019) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Sturgeon v. Frost * | 587 U.S. 28 (2019) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Concurrence (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Sykes v. United States | 564 U.S. 1 (2011) | Policy / Facts about the world / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | No |
Sykes v. United States | 564 U.S. 1 (2011) | Both policy and administrability / Undesirable consequences + Unworkability / Primary reliance | Dissent (Scalia) | Yes | No |
Sykes v. United States | 564 U.S. 1 (2011) | Policy / Facts about the world / Some reliance | Concurrence (Thomas) | No | No |
Taggart v. Lorenzen * | 139 S. Ct. 1795 (2019) | Both policy and administrability / Purpose + Unworkability / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Terry v. United States | 141 S. Ct. 1858 (2021) | Policy / Fairness / Primary reliance | Concurrence (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. | 576 U.S. 519 (2015) | Policy / Fairness (settled interests) + Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | Yes |
Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc. | 576 U.S. 519 (2015) | Policy / Facts about the world + Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP | 562 U.S. 170 (2011) | Policy / Absurd results / Primary reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | Yes |
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP | 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020) | Policy / Purpose / Primary reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP | 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020) | Policy / Absurd results / Primary reliance | Dissent (Gorsuch) | Yes | Yes |
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club | 141 S. Ct. 777 (2021) | Policy / Facts about the world / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off. v. Booking.com | 140 S. Ct. 2298 (2020) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. | 142 S. Ct. 941 (2022) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | No |
United States v. Apel | 571 U.S. 359 (2014) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
United States v. Briggs* | 141 S. Ct. 467 (2020) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
United States v. Castleman | 572 U.S. 157 (2014) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | No |
United States v. Castleman* | 572 U.S. 157 (2014) | Policy / Facts about the world / Some reliance | Concurrence (Scalia) | Yes | Yes |
United States v. Davis | 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Kavanaugh) | No | No |
United States v. Denedo | 556 U.S. 904 (2009) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Roberts) | No | No |
United States v. Hayes | 555 U.S. 415 (2009) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Roberts) | No | No |
United States v. Hayes* | 555 U.S. 415 (2009) | Policy / Facts about the world + Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
United States v. Ressam* | 553 U.S. 272 (2008) | Policy / Absurd results / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
United States v. Rodriquez | 553 U.S. 377 (2008) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
United States v. Rodriquez* | 553 U.S. 377 (2008) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Souter) | Yes | No |
United States v. Santos | 553 U.S. 507 (2008) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | No |
United States v. Santos | 553 U.S. 507 (2008) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Concurrence (Stevens) | No | No |
United States v. Santos* | 553 U.S. 507 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
United States v. Santos* | 553 U.S. 507 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
United States v. Stevens | 559 U.S. 460 (2010) | Policy / Undesirable consequences + Fairness / Primary reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | Yes |
United States v. Stevens | 559 U.S. 460 (2010) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
United States v. Taylor* | 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022) | Both policy and Administrability / Absurd results + Resources / primary | Dissent (Thomas) | No | No |
United States v. Tinklenberg | 563 U.S. 647 (2011) | Administrability / Unworkability / Minimal reliance | Concurrence (Scalia) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
United States v. Tinklenberg | 563 U.S. 647 (2011) | Both administrability and policy / Workability + Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation | 563 U.S. 307 (2011) | Policy / Beneficial consequences / Minimal reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | Yes |
United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation* | 563 U.S. 307 (2011) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Concurrence (Sotomayor) | No | No |
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar | 570 U.S. 338 (2013) | Both policy and Administrability / Undesirable consequences + Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar | 570 U.S. 338 (2013) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | Yes |
US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen* | 569 U.S. 88 (2013) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | No |
Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA | 573 U.S. 302 (2014) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Alito) | No | No |
Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA | 573 U.S. 302 (2014) | Both policy and Administrability / Purpose + Resources / Primary reliance | Majority (Scalia) | No | Yes |
Va. Uranium, Inc. v. Warren | 139 S. Ct. 1894 (2019) | Both policy and Administrability / Undesirable consequences + Unworkability (difficult) / Some reliance | Majority (Gorsuch) | No | No |
Va. Uranium, Inc. v. Warren | 139 S. Ct. 1894 (2019) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Roberts) | No | No |
Vaden v. Discover Bank | 556 U.S. 49 (2009) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting (Roberts) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Vaden v. Discover Bank | 556 U.S. 49 (2009) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Van Buren v. United States | 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Barrett) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Van Buren v. United States | 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Van De Kamp v. Goldstein | 555 U.S. 335 (2009) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Vance v. Ball State Univ. | 570 U.S. 421 (2013) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Vance v. Ball State Univ. | 570 U.S. 421 (2013) | Policy / Fairness + Facts about the world / Primary reliance | Dissent (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Vance v. Ball State Univ. | 570 U.S. 421 (2013) | Administrability / Unworkability / Primary reliance | Concurrence (Thomas) | No | No |
Vega v. Tekoh | 142 S. Ct. 2095 (2022) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Voisine v. United States | 579 U.S. 686 (2016) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Kagan) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Voisine v. United States | 579 U.S. 686 (2016) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Thomas) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt | 546 U.S. 303 (2006) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Wall v. Kholi | 562 U.S. 545 (2011) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Wallace v. Kato | 549 U.S. 384 (2007) | Administrability / Resources / Primary reliance | Dissent (Breyer) | No | No |
Watson v. United States | 552 U.S. 74 (2007) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Concurrence (Ginsburg) | No | No |
Watters v. Wachovia Bank | 550 U.S. 1 (2007) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Majority (Ginsburg) | No | Yes |
Watters v. Wachovia Bank | 550 U.S. 1 (2007) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Stevens) | No | No |
West Virginia v. EPA | 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
West Virginia v. EPA | 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Concurrence (Gorsuch) | Yes | No |
West Virginia v. EPA* | 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Kagan) | Yes | Yes |
WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp. | 138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Dissent (Gorsuch) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co. | 549 U.S. 312 (2007) | Policy / Facts about the world / Primary reliance | Majority (Thomas) | No | No |
Wilson v. Sellers | 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018) | Administrability / Unworkability (difficult) / Minimal reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Wilson v. Sellers | 138 S. Ct. 1188 (2018) | Policy / Facts about the world + Fairness / Some reliance | Dissent (Gorsuch) | Yes | No |
Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist. | 550 U.S. 516 (2007) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Partial concurring / Partial dissenting(Scalia) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist.* | 550 U.S. 516 (2007) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. | 555 U.S. 7 (2008) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Some reliance | Majority (Roberts) | No | No |
Wooden v. United States | 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022) | Policy / Fairness / Some reliance | Concurrence (Kavanaugh) | No | No |
Woodford v. Ngo | 548 U.S. 81 (2006) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Majority (Alito) | No | No |
Woodford v. Ngo | 548 U.S. 81 (2006) | Administrability / Resources / Some reliance | Dissent (Stevens) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
WOS v. E.M.A. | 568 U.S. 627 (2013) | Policy / Beneficial consequences / Minimal reliance | Majority (Kennedy) | Yes | No |
WOS v. E.M.A. | 568 U.S. 627 (2013) | Both policy and Administrability/ Resources + Undesirable consequences / Primary reliance | Dissent (Roberts) | Yes | No |
Wyeth v. Levine | 555 U.S. 555 (2009) | Both policy and Administrability / Absurd results + Unworkability / Some reliance | Dissent (Alito) | No | No |
Xiulu Ruan v. United States | 142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022) | Administrability / Unworkability / Some reliance | Partial concurrence (Alito) | No | Yes |
Xiulu Ruan v. United States | 142 S. Ct. 2370 (2022) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Majority (Breyer) | No | No |
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes | 141 S. Ct. 2434 (2021) | Policy / Absurd results / Some reliance | Majority (Sotomayor) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes | 141 S. Ct. 2434 (2021) | Policy / Undesirable consequences / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Gorsuch) | No | No |
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Texas | 142 S. Ct. 1929 (2022) | Administrability / Unworkability / Minimal reliance | Majority (Gorsuch) | Yes | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Texas | 142 S. Ct. 1929 (2022) | Policy / Absurd results / Minimal reliance | Dissent (Roberts) | No | Practical corroborates plain meaning |
Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Dep’t of Educ. | 550 U.S. 81 (2007) | Policy / Purpose / Some reliance | Majority (Breyer) | Yes | No |