United States v. Chris W. Beggerly, et al.

The court held that courts may not create new rights of action to remedy violations of international law under the Alien Tort Statute.

In a case concerning the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, the Court held that the doctrine bars federal court review of state court decisions even if those decisions are subject to further review in state court.· AI-written

The Court considered whether lower-court judges could issue universal injunctions blocking nationwide enforcement of policies, and ruled that such injunctions exceed judicial power unless necessary to give the formal plaintiff "complete relief".· AI-written

The court held that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute.

In a suit against a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the Court held that personal jurisdiction exists if an immunity exception applies and service is proper, without a minimum contacts analysis, and vacated and remanded the Ninth Circuit's decision.· AI-written

The Court held that Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure empowers federal courts to reverse voluntary dismissals when based on a mistake, among other reasons.

The US Supreme Court ruled that visa revocations are left to the discretion of the Homeland Security Department, so they cannot be judicially reviewed.

In a challenge to a Texas law banning abortions after six weeks and enforced by private lawsuits, the Court ruled providers could not sue state-court judges, clerks, or the Attorney General, but their claims against state licensing officials could proceed.· AI-written

The court held that the extent to which the 2006 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order defining "unsolicited advertisement" binds the lower courts may depend on the resolution of two preliminary sets of questions that were not aired before the Court of Appeals.

The court held that a Social Security Administration Appeals Council dismissal on timeliness grounds after a claimant has had an administrative law judge hearing on the merits is a final decision subject to judicial review.

The Court ruled that international organizations, such as the International Finance Corporation, could be sued in US federal courts for conduct arising from their commercial activities, sharing the same immunity as foreign governments.· AI-written

The Court upheld a federal act that barred federal courts from hearing lawsuits involving a particular parcel of land, with a plurality holding that it did not violate Article III.· AI-written

The court held that when a court sanctions bad-faith conduct by ordering a litigant to pay the other side’s legal fees, the award is limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the bad-faith misconduct.

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that plaintiffs may file lawsuits against Fannie Mae in any state or federal court that is "already endowed with subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit."

The Court held that a federal district court may rescind a discharge order and recall jurors for further service in the same case.

The Court held, 8–0, that the jurisdictional test established by §27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is the same as 28 U.S.C. § 1331's test for deciding if a case "arises under" a federal law.

In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court ruled that federal district courts are required to refer cases to a three-judge panel when plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts.

The court held that bankruptcy courts may adjudicate Stern claims with the parties' knowing and voluntary consent.

The court held that a class-action plaintiff cannot defeat federal court jurisdiction by stipulating that they will not seek damages above the amount-in-controversy requirement.

The court held that a federal district court has discretion to order that a defendant's federal sentence run consecutively to an anticipated state sentence that has not yet been imposed.

The court held that a sentencing court that misses the 90-day deadline nonetheless retains the power to order restitution where that court made clear prior to the deadline's expiration that it would order restitution.

The court held that the fact that a federal agency directs, supervises, and monitors a company's activities in considerable detail does not bring that company within the scope of the statute permitting removal jurisdiction for actions against federal officers.

The court held a United States district court has discretion to respond at once to a defendant's forum non conveniens plea, and need not take up first any other threshold objection.

The Court affirmed the Second Circuit's ruling against a health insurer that sought reimbursement of benefits paid to a deceased federal employee from his wife's settlement with third parties who allegedly caused his injuries.· AI-written

The United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate (will) courts over tort claims under state common law.

The court held that a national bank, for 28 U.S.C. §1348 purposes, is a citizen of the state in which its main office, as set forth in its articles of association, is located.

The court held that defendants may remove an action on the basis of diversity of citizenship when there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants and when no defendant is a citizen of the forum state.

The court held that a party's post-filing change in citizenship cannot cure a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction that existed at the time of filing in a diversity action.

The Supreme Court stated that the equitable remedies authorized by the Judiciary Act of 1789 are limited to remedies that were available in courts of equity at that time, particularly from the Lord Chancellor in the English Court of Chancery.

The Court unanimously held that a district court conducting coordinated pretrial proceedings in multiple cases by designation of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) has no authority to reassign a transferred case to itself for the actual trial of the case.

The Court held that federal jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship can be sustained even if there did not exist complete diversity at the time of removal to federal court, so long as complete diversity exists at the time the district court enters judgment.

The court held that the comprehensive administrative review scheme established by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977 implicitly precludes federal district court jurisdiction over pre-enforcement challenges to the Act and its regulations.

The Court held that tribal court remedies must be exhausted before tribal court jurisdiction can be challenged in federal court.

The Court enunciated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, holding that lower federal courts may not sit in direct review of state court decisions.· AI-written

The Court held that Article III jurisdiction could not be conferred on non-Article III courts (i.e. courts without the independence and protection given to Article III judges).

The Court held that once a school district remedies de jure racial discrimination they are not required to provide remedies for population shifts that are not caused by state discrimination.

The Court held that a federal district court may not decline jurisdiction over a properly removed state case because it is backlogged, and that such a refusal may be reviewed by a writ of mandamus.· AI-written

The court held that a court of admiralty has no inherent power, independent of any statute or rule, to order the taking of depositions for the purpose of discovery.

The court held that for federal question jurisdiction to exist over a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment, the lawsuit must state a claim that raises a federal question.