{"id":10648,"date":"2014-04-04T11:12:39","date_gmt":"2014-04-04T17:12:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/wordpress\/?page_id=10648"},"modified":"2026-03-24T11:03:49","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T16:03:49","slug":"scotus-cases","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?page_id=10648","title":{"rendered":"Most Recent SCOTUS Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

2025-26 Term:<\/strong>
Case v. Montana<\/a>, 607 U.S. —, 146 S. Ct. 500, 223 L. Ed. 2d 382 (Jan. 14, 2026) (ScotusBlog<\/a>). Question presented:<\/strong> “Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.” It does not. It’s an “objectively reasonable basis” for believing action is required.
Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo<\/a>, 146 S. Ct. 1, 222 L. Ed. 2d 1213 (Sep. 8, 2025), reversing TRO: “Based on the evidence before it, the [district] court held that the Government was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: (1) their apparent race or ethnicity; (2) whether they spoke Spanish or English with an accent; (3) the type of location at which they were found (such as a car wash or bus stop); and (4) the type of job they appeared to work.” (Based on concurrence and dissent, or is it just an Art. III standing case?) But compare Trump v. Illinois<\/a>, 607 U.S. —, 146 S. Ct. 432, 223 L. Ed. 2d 294 (Dec. 23, 2025), where reasonable suspicion is stated in the concurrence to be required (at n.4).
Chatrie v. United States<\/a>, 25-112 (cert. granted Jan. 16, 2026; argument April 27, 2026) (ScotusBlog<\/a>). Question presented:<\/strong> Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
Zorn v. Linton<\/a>, 2026 U.S. LEXIS 1471 (Mar. 23, 2026) (per curiam) (ScotusBlog<\/a>). The use of a wrist lock for pain compliance to remove a protestor from the Vermont Capitol was not clearly established as excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2024-25 Term:<\/strong>
Martin v. United States<\/a>, 605 U.S. 395, 145 S. Ct. 1689, 222 L. Ed. 2d 54 (2025) (ScotusBlog<\/a>). The FTCA discretionary-function exception is not categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.
Barnes v. Felix<\/a>, 605 U.S. 73, 145 S. Ct. 1353, 221 L. Ed. 2d 751 (2025) (ScotusBlog<\/a>). The \u201ctotality of circumstances\u201d in excessive force cases includes the entire encounter, not just the moments before force was used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2023\u201324 Term:<\/strong>
Gonzalez v. Trevino<\/a>, 602 U.S. 653, 144 S. Ct. 1663, 219 L. Ed. 2d 332 (2024) (per curiam) (ScotusBlog<\/a>) (“In Nieves v. Bartlett<\/a>, this Court held that probable cause does not bar a retaliatory arrest claim against a ‘police officer’ when a plaintiff shows ‘that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.’ 139 S. Ct. 1715, 1727 (2019). … The questions presented are: 1) Whether the Nieves probable cause exception can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened. 2) Whether the Nieves probable cause rule is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.” The first question is answered yes, and the Fifth Circuit shall reconsider.)
Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio<\/a>, 602 U.S. 556, 144 S. Ct. 1745, 219 L. Ed. 2d 262 (2024) (ScotusBlog<\/a>) (“The presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge. The parties, and the United States as amicus curiae, all agree with this conclusion, which follows from both the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2022\u201323 Term:<\/strong>
None.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2021\u201322 Term:<\/strong>
Thompson v. Clark<\/a>, 596 U.S. 36, 142 S. Ct. 1332, 212 L.Ed.2d 382 (2022) (ScotusBlog<\/a>: “Larry Thompson\u2019s showing that his criminal prosecution ended without a conviction satisfies the requirement to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution in a Fourth Amendment claim under Section 1983 for malicious prosecution; an affirmative indication of innocence is not needed.”)
Egbert v. Boule<\/a>, 596 U.S. 482, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 213 L.Ed.2d 54 (2022) (ScotusBlog<\/a>) (no Bivens<\/em> claim for claims against federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions for allegedly violating a plaintiff\u2019s Fourth and First Amendment rights)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2020\u201321 Term:<\/strong>
Torres v. Madrid<\/a>, 592 U.S. 306, 141 S. Ct. 989, 209 L.Ed.2d 190 (2021) (ScotusBlog<\/a>) (an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by shooting her is a \u201cseizure\u201d within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment)
Lange v. California<\/a>, <\/em>594 U.S. 295, 141 S. Ct. 2011, 210 L. Ed. 2d 486 (2021) (ScotusBlog<\/a>) (hot pursuit of a m<\/span>isdemeanant into a home unreasonable)
Caniglia v. Strom<\/a>, 593 U.S. 194, 141 S. Ct. 1596, 209 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2021) (ScotusBlog<\/a>) (the \u201ccommunity caretaking\u201d exception to the Fourth Amendment\u2019s warrant requirement does not extend to the home)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2019\u201320 Term:<\/strong> 
Kansas v. Glover<\/a>, 589 U.S. 396, 140 S. Ct. 1183, 206 L. Ed. 2d 412 (2020) (<\/span>ScotusBlog<\/a>) (it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary).   <\/span>
Hern\u00e1ndez v. Mesa<\/a>, 589 U.S. 93, 140 S. Ct. 735, 206 L. Ed. 2d 29 (2020) (<\/span>ScotusBlog<\/a>) (no <\/span>Bivens<\/em> claim under Fourth and Fifth Amendment for a wanton cross-border shooting death by a Border Patrol Agent)<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2018\u201319 Term:<\/strong>
Mitchell v. Wisconsin<\/a>, 588 U.S. 840, 139 S. Ct. 2525, 204 L. Ed. 2d 1040 (2019) (ScotusBlog<\/a>) (warrantless blood draw from unconscious motorist under implied consent law reasonable under Fourth Amendment)
Nieves v. Bartlett<\/a>, 587 U.S. 391, 139 S. Ct. 1715, 204 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2019) (ScotusBlog<\/a>) (probable cause to arrest defeats a First Amendment retaliation claim except where there otherwise would not have been an arrest)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2017\u201318 Term:<\/strong>
District of Columbia v. Wesby<\/a>, 583 U.S. 48, 138 S. Ct. 577, 199 L. Ed. 2d 453 (2018) (there was probable cause to arrest under the Fourth Amendment; qualified immunity if there wasn’t under D.C. statute) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Carpenter v. United States<\/a>, 585 U.S. 296, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 201 L. Ed. 2d 507 (2018) (Warrant requirement for historical cell site location information) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Collins v. Virginia<\/a>, 584 U.S. 586, 138 S. Ct. 1663, 201 L. Ed. 2d 9 (2018) (The Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception does not permit a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Byrd v. United States<\/a>, 584 U.S. 395, 138 S. Ct. 1518, 200 L. Ed. 2d 805 (2018) (a driver may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter’s permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 17\u20132 (granted Oct. 16, 2017; argued Feb. 27, 2018) (Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider’s control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.) dismissed as moot April 17, 2018.<\/a> (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida<\/a>, 585 U.S. 87, 138 S. Ct. 1945, 201 L. Ed. 2d 342 (2018) (The existence of probable cause does not always defeat a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law, but it’s really fact dependent.) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Kisela v. Hughes<\/a>, 584 U.S. 100, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 200 L. Ed. 2d 449 (2018) (per curiam) (Officer who used deadly force against a woman armed with a knife who wouldn’t drop it entitled to qualified immunity)
Sause v. Bauer<\/a>, 585 U.S. 957, 138 S. Ct. 2561, 201 L. Ed. 2d 982 (2018) (per curiam) (despite waiver of Fourth Amendment claim below, it was inextricably tied to plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, and it’s revived; qualified immunity not property granted at this stage)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2016\u201317 Term:<\/strong>
Hern\u00e1ndez v. Mesa<\/a>, 582 U.S. 548, 137 S. Ct. 2003, 198 L. Ed. 2d 625 (2017) (per curiam) (remanded in light of Ziglar v. Abbasi<\/a> to determine whether Bivens applies) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Manuel v. City of Joliet<\/a>, 580 U.S. 357, 137 S. Ct. 911, 197 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2017) (an individual\u2019s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure continues beyond legal process so as to allow a Fourth Amendment challenge to pretrial detention) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
County of Los Angeles v. Mendez<\/a>, 581 U.S. 420, 137 S. Ct. 1539, 198 L. Ed. 2d 52 (2017) (There is no Fourth Amendment basis for the Ninth Circuit’s provocation rule for excessive force cases.) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
White v. Pauly<\/a>, 580 U.S. 73, 137 S. Ct. 548, 196 L. Ed. 2d 463 (2017) (per curiam) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2015\u201316 Term<\/strong>
Utah v. Strieff<\/a>, 579 U.S. 232, 136 S.Ct. 2056, 195 L. Ed. 2d 400 (2016) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Birchfield v. North Dakota<\/a>, 579 U.S. 438, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 195 L. Ed. 2d 560 (2016) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Mullenix v. Luna<\/a>, 577 U.S. 7, 136 S. Ct. 305, 193 L. Ed. 2d 255 (2015) (per curiam) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2014\u201315 Term:<\/strong>
City and San Francisco v. Sheehan<\/a>, 575 U.S. 600, 135 S. Ct. 1765, 192 L. Ed. 2d 856 (2015) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Grady v. North Carolina<\/a>, 575 U.S. 306, 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015) (per curiam)
Heien v. North Carolina<\/a>, 574 U.S. 54, 135 S. Ct. 530, 190 L. Ed. 2d 475 (2014) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Rodriguez v. United States<\/a>, 575 U.S. 348, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
City of Los Angeles v. Patel<\/a>, 576 U.S. 409, 135 S.Ct. 2443, 192 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2015) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Carroll v. Garman<\/a>, 574 U.S. 13, 135 S.Ct. 348, 190 L. Ed. 2d 311 (2014) (per curiam)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2013\u201314 Term:<\/strong>
Riley v. California<\/a>, 573 U.S. 373, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014) (ScotusBlog Riley<\/a> & Wurie<\/a>)
Plumhoff v. Rickard<\/a>, 572 U.S. 765, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1056 (2014) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Stanton v. Sims<\/a>, 571 U.S. 3, 134 S.Ct. 3, 187 L. Ed. 2d 341 (2013) (per curiam)
Navarette v. California<\/a>, 572 U.S. 393, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 188 L. Ed. 2d 680 (2014) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Fernandez v. California<\/a>, 571 U.S. 292, 134 S.Ct. 1126, 188 L. Ed. 2d 25 (2014) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2012\u201313 Term:<\/strong>
Maryland v. King<\/a>, 569 U.S. 435, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Missouri v. McNeely<\/a>, 569 U.S. 141, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Bailey v. United States<\/a>, 568 U.S. 186, 133 S.Ct. 1031, 185 L.Ed.2d 19 (2013) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Florida v. Harris<\/a>, 568 U.S. 237, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Florida v. Jardines<\/a>, 569 U.S. 1, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA<\/a>, 568 U.S. 398, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2011\u201312 Term:
<\/strong>Ryburn v. Huff<\/a>, 565 U.S. 469, 132 S.Ct. 987, 181 L.Ed.2d 966 (2012) (other blog<\/a>)
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders<\/a>, 566 U.S. 318, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
United States v. Jones<\/a>, 565 U.S. 400, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Messerschmidt v. Millender<\/a>, 565 U.S. 535, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2010-11 Term:
<\/strong>Kentucky v. King<\/a>, 563 U.S. 452, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Camreta v. Greene<\/a>, 563 U.S. 692, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd<\/a>, 563 U.S. 731, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Davis v. United States<\/a>, 564 U.S. 229, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2009\u201310 Term:
<\/strong>Michigan v. Fisher<\/a>, 558 U.S. 45, 130 S.Ct. 546, 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009) (per curiam) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
City of Ontario v. Quon<\/a>, 560 U.S. 746, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 177 L.Ed.2d 216 (2010) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2008\u201309 Term:
<\/strong>Herring v. United States<\/a>, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Pearson v. Callahan<\/a>, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Arizona v. Johnson<\/a>, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Arizona v. Gant<\/a>, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding<\/a>, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S.Ct. 2633, 174 L.Ed.2d 354 (2009) (ScotusBlog<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

[Last updated and cite checked 2\/28\/26]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

2025-26 Term:Case v. Montana, 607 U.S. —, 146 S. Ct. 500, 223 L. Ed. 2d 382 (Jan. 14, 2026) (ScotusBlog). Question presented: “Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":5,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-10648","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10648","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10648"}],"version-history":[{"count":253,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10648\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63680,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10648\/revisions\/63680"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10648"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}