# List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 601

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 601 of the United States Reports:
    Note: As of August 2024, final bound volumes for the U.S. Supreme Court's United States Reports have been published through volume 579. Newer cases from subsequent future volumes do not yet have official page numbers and typically use three underscores in place of the page number; e.g., Snyder v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024).
| Case name | Docket no. | Date decided |
| Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer | 22–429 | December 5, 2023 |
| The case is vacated as moot. |||
| Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC | 22–600 | February 8, 2024 |
| A whistleblower seeking to invoke the protections of section 806 of the SOX Act must prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent.” |||
| Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz | 22–846 | February 8, 2024 |
| Yes, the FCRA waives the sovereign immunity of the United States |||
| Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC | 22–500 | February 21, 2024 |
| Choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions not applicable in this case. |||
| McElrath v. Georgia | 22–721 | February 21, 2024 |
| "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes notwithstanding any inconsistency with the jury's other verdicts. |||
| Trump v. Anderson | 23–719 | March 4, 2024 |
| Only Congress, not the states, can determine eligibility for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Colorado Supreme Court reversed. |||
| Pulsifer v. United States | 22–340 | March 15, 2024 |
| A criminal defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence is eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) only if the defendant satisfies each of the provision’s three conditions. |||
| Lindke v. Freed | 22–611 | March 15, 2024 |
| A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official's social-media page engages in state action under §1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State's behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts. |||
| O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier | 22–324 | March 15, 2024 |
| Remand to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of the decision in Lindke. |||
| Wilkinson v. Garland | 22–666 | March 19, 2024 |
| Federal courts have the jurisdiction to review the determinations of immigration judges as a mixed question of law. |||
| Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre | 22–1178 | March 19, 2024 |
| A complaint about being put on the No Fly List is not moot simply because the government later took the plaintiff off the List. To show mootness, the government must disclose the conduct that landed the plaintiff on the No Fly List and ensure that they will not be placed back on the List for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future. |||
| Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC | 23–51 | April 12, 2024 |
| Transportation workers do not need to formally work in the transportation industry to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act. |||
| Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. | 22–1165 | April 12, 2024 |
| Pure omissions are not actionable under the SEC's Rule 10b–5(b). |||
| Sheetz v. County of El Dorado | 22–1074 | April 12, 2024 |
| The Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions. |||
| DeVillier v. Texas | 22–913 | April 16, 2024 |
| Texas state law provides a cause of action that allows property owners to vindicate their rights under the Takings Clause. It is not necessary to address whether a plaintiff has a cause of action arising directly under the Takings Clause. |||
| Rudisill v. McDonough | 22–888 | April 16, 2024 |
| Soldiers who accrue educational benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills may use either one in any order. |||
| McIntosh v. United States | 22–7386 | April 17, 2024 |
| A court's failure to enter a preliminary order imposing criminal forfeiture before sentencing does not necessarily bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing. |||
| Muldrow v. City of St. Louis | 22–193 | April 17, 2024 |
| Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against discriminatory job transfers even where the transfer does not result in a significant disadvantage. |||
| Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy | 22–1078 | May 9, 2024 |
| Assuming the discovery rule applies to copyright infringement, the three-year statute of limitations for an infringement suit does not prevent recovery. |||
| Culley v. Marshall | 22–585 | May 9, 2024 |
| The Due Process Clause requires a timely civil-asset-forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing. |||
| Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited | 22–448 | May 16, 2024 |
| The funding scheme of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is constitutional and in accordance with historic funding mechanisms. |||
| Smith v. Spizzirri | 22–1218 | May 16, 2024 |
| When a court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act compels the court to issue a stay, and the court lacks discretion to dismiss the suit. |||
| Harrow v. Department of Defense | 23–21 | May 16, 2024 |
| The 60-day filing deadline for appeals of decisions by the Merit Systems Protection Board is not jurisdictional, so courts have discretion to equitably toll it. |||