# Dismissed as improvidently granted

A grant of appellate review is dismissed as improvidently granted (DIG) when a court with discretionary appellate jurisdiction later decides that it should not review the case. Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States occasionally grants a petition of the writ of certiorari, only to later DIG the case.

## Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court normally DIGs a case through a per curiam decision, usually without giving reasons, but rather issuing a one-line decision: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." However, justices sometimes file separate opinions, and the opinion of the Court may instead give reasons for the DIG.
A DIG can come as a surprise or disappointment to parties who have put significant effort into getting a case to the Court, to third parties who have filed amicus briefs to express their views to the Court, or to members of the public expecting resolution of a high-profile dispute. However, respondents who had urged the Court not to take a case in the first place may seek to convince the Court to DIG the case, leaving their lower-court victory intact and avoiding a potentially unfavorable precedent.
In most cases, the reasons for a DIG fall into three main categories:
* The most common reason for a DIG is that the Court discovers that the case is a "poor vehicle" for resolving the question presented. That is, there may be difficult threshold issues that the Court would have to decide before getting to the issue that the Court agreed to review.
* The Court also may DIG a case when it believes the petitioner has engaged in a "bait-and-switch", pressing new arguments or issues that were not the focus of the cert petition or the question upon which the Court granted review.
* The Court sometimes DIGs cases where it is unable to agree on a clear resolution for the case, deciding to issue no decision rather than a fractured or muddled decision.
It has not always been clear how many votes are needed to DIG a case. By custom, it takes only four votes to grant certiorari, not a majority of five, so it has been suggested that six votes should be required to DIG a case (i.e., four justices could insist on keeping the case). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has DIGged some cases over four justices' dissent, such as Medellin v. Dretke (2005), Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson (2010), and Boyer v. Louisiana (2012).
Because per curiam opinions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions lack the attribution of who authored or joined the decision. Sometimes, the Supreme Court DIGs a case through a simple docket order, rather than issuing even a per curiam opinion. (See Other cases below.) Accordingly, the lists below may not include every case with a DIG.

### DIGs after oral argument since the 1989 term

| Case name | Opinion | Granted | Argued | Decided | Notes |
| NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB | No. 23-970, 604 U.S. ___ | 17 Jun 2024 | 13 Nov 2024 | 11 Dec 2024 | One line. |
| Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank | No. 23-980, 604 U.S. ___ | 10 Jun 2024 | 6 Nov 2024 | 22 Nov 2024 | One line. |
| Moyle v. United States Idaho v. United States | No. 23-726, 603 U.S. ___ | 5 Jan 2024 | 24 Apr 2024 | 27 Jun 2024 | One line (which also included vacating the stays that the Supreme Court had previously granted). Kagan concurred, joined by Sotomayor and in part by Jackson. Barrett concurred, joined by Roberts and Kavanaugh. Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part. Alito dissented, joined by Thomas and in part by Gorsuch. |
| Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski | No. 22-105, 599 U.S. ___ | 8 Dec 2022 | 21 Mar 2023 | 23 Jun 2023 | Footnote 7 in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski. |
| In re Grand Jury | 21-1397 | 3 Oct 2022 | 9 Jan 2023 | 23 Jan 2023 | One line. |
| Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco | 20-1775 | 29 Oct 2021 | 23 Feb 2022 | 15 Jun 2022 | One line. Roberts concurred, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. |
| United States v. Texas | 21-588 | 22 Oct 2021 | 1 Nov 2021 | 10 Dec 2021 | One line. Sotomayor dissented without an opinion. Argued and announced with Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson. |
| Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (2021) | 19-963 | 15 Jun 2020 | 8 Dec 2020 | 25 Jan 2021 | One line. This was the Supreme Court's second time hearing the case, following Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (2019). |
| Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian | 18-459 | 4 Jan 2019 | 15 Apr 2019 | 23 Apr 2019 | One line. |
| City of Hays v. Vogt | 16-1495 | 28 Sep 2017 | 20 Feb 2018 | 29 May 2018 | One line. Gorsuch was recused. |
| Dalmazzi v. United StatesCox v. United States | 16-96116-1017 | 28 Sep 2017 | 16 Jan 2018 | 22 Jun 2018 | One line. Argued and announced with Ortiz v. United States. |
| Duncan v. Owens | 14-1516 | 1 Oct 2015 | 12 Jan 2016 | 20 Jan 2016 | One line. |
| City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan | No. 13-1412, 575 U.S. ___ (2015) | 25 November 2014 | 23 March 2015 | 18 May 2015 | |
| Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall | 571 U.S. 83 | 24 Jun 2013 | 13 Nov 2013 | 10 Dec 2013 | One line. Breyer dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan. |
| Madigan v. Levin | 571 U.S. 1 | 18 Mar 2013 | 7 Oct 2013 | 15 Oct 2013 | One line. |
| Boyer v. Louisiana | 11-9953 | 5 Oct 2012 | 14 Jan 2013 | 29 Apr 2013 | One line. Alito concurred, joined by Scalia and Thomas. Sotomayor dissented, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. |
| First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards | 10-708 | 20 Jun 2011 | 28 Nov 2011 | 28 Jun 2012 | One line. |
| Vasquez v. United States | 11-199 | 28 Nov 2011 | 21 Mar 2012 | 2 Apr 2012 | One line. |
| Tolentino v. New York | 563 U.S. 123 | 15 Nov 2010 | 21 Mar 2011 | 29 Mar 2011 | One line. |
| Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson | 560 U.S. 272 | 14 Dec 2009 | 31 Mar 2010 | 24 May 2010 | One line. Roberts dissented, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, and Sotomayor. Sotomayor dissented, joined by Kennedy. |
| Sullivan v. Florida | 560 U.S. 181 | 4 May 2009 | 9 Nov 2009 | 17 May 2010 | One line. |
| Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams (2009) | 556 U.S. 178 | 9 Jun 2008 | 3 Dec 2008 | 31 Mar 2009 | One line. This was the Supreme Court's second time hearing the case, following Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams (2007). |
| Bell v. Kelly | 555 U.S. 55 | 12 May 2008 | 12 Nov 2008 | 17 Nov 2008 | One line. |
| Roper v. Weaver | 550 U.S. 598 | 7 Dec 2006 | 21 Mar 2007 | 21 May 2007 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. Roberts concurred in the result. Scalia dissented, joined by Thomas and Alito. |
| Toledo-Flores v. United States | 549 U.S. 69 | 3 Apr 2006 | 3 Oct 2006 | 5 Dec 2006 | One line. Argued and announced with Lopez v. Gonzales. |
| Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. | 548 U.S. 124 | 31 Oct 2005 | 21 Mar 2006 | 22 Jun 2006 | One line. Roberts was recused. |
| Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams | 547 U.S. 516 | 12 Dec 2005 | 26 Apr 2006 | 5 Jun 2006 | One paragraph. The Court initially granted review of only Question 1 of the cert petition. After hearing arguments, the Court dismissed as improvidently granted, but simultaneously issued a grant, vacate, remand of the entire cert petition in light of Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., which had been decided the same day. |
| Maryland v. Blake | 546 U.S. 72 | 18 Apr 2005 | 1 Nov 2005 | 14 Nov 2005 | One line. |
| Medellín v. Dretke | 544 U.S. 660 | 10 Dec 2004 | 28 Mar 2005 | 23 May 2005 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. Ginsburg concurred, join by Scalia as to Part II. O'Connor dissented, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Breyer. Breyer dissented, joined by Stevens. Souter dissented. The Court later decided a related case, Medellín v. Texas (2008). |
| Howell v. Mississippi | 543 U.S. 440 | 28 Jun 2004 | 29 Nov 2004 | 24 Jan 2005 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. |
| Nike, Inc. v. Kasky | 539 U.S. 654 | 10 Jan 2003 | 23 Apr 2003 | 26 Jun 2003 | One line. Stevens concurred, joined by Ginsburg, and joined by Souter as to Part III. Kennedy dissented without an opinion. Breyer dissented, joined by O'Connor. |
| Abdur'Rahman v. Bell | 537 U.S. 88 | 22 Apr 2002 | 6 Nov 2002 | 10 Dec 2002 | One line. Stevens dissented. |
| Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley | 537 U.S. 1 | 19 Feb 2002 | 7 Oct 2002 | 15 Oct 2002 | One line. |
| Mathias v. WorldCom Technologies, Inc. | 535 U.S. 682 | 5 Mar 2001 | 5 Dec 2001 | 20 May 2002 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. O'Connor was recused. |
| Adams v. Florida Power Corp. | 535 U.S. 1 | 3 Dec 2001 | 20 Mar 2002 | 1 Apr 2002 | One line. |
| Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta | 534 U.S. 103 | 26 Mar 2001 | 31 Oct 2001 | 27 Nov 2001 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. This was the Supreme Court's third time hearing the case, following Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995) and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater (2000). |
| Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett | 531 U.S. 356 | | 11 Oct 2000 | 21 Feb 2001 | |
| District of Columbia v. Tri County Industries, Inc. | 531 U.S. 287 | | 10 Jan 2001 | 17 Jan 2001 | One line. |
| Ricci v. Arlington Heights | 523 U.S. 613 | | 21 Apr 1998 | 4 May 1998 | One line. |
| Rogers v. United States | 522 U.S. 252 | | 5 Nov 1997 | 14 Jan 1998 | Stevens wrote the plurality opinion, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer. O'Connor concurred in the result, joined by Scalia. Kennedy dissented, joined by Rehnquist and Souter. |
| Adams v. Robertson | 520 U.S. 83 | | 14 Jan 1997 | 3 Mar 1997 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. |
| Grimmett v. Brown | 519 U.S. 233 | | 6 Jan 1997 | 14 Jan 1997 | One line. |
| Ticor Title Insurance Company v. Brown | 511 U.S. 117 | | 1 Mar 1994 | 4 Apr 1994 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. O'Connor dissented, joined by Rehnquist and Kennedy. |
| Tennessee v. Middlebrooks | 510 U.S. 124 | | 1 Nov 1993 | 13 Dec 1993 | One line. Blackmun dissented without an opinion. |
| Cavanaugh v. Roller | 510 U.S. 42 | | 8 Nov 1993 | 30 Nov 1993 | One line. |
| Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U. S. Philips Corp. | 510 U.S. 27 | | 12 Oct 1993 | 30 Nov 1993 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. Stevens dissented, joined by Blackmun. |
| Hadley v. United States | 506 U.S. 19 | | 4 Nov 1992 | 16 Nov 1992 | One line. |
| Montana v. Imlay | 506 U.S. 5 | | 7 Oct 1992 | 3 Nov 1992 | One line. Stevens concurred. White dissented. |
| PFZ Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez | 503 U.S. 257 | | 26 Feb 1992 | 9 Mar 1992 | One line. |
| Gibson v. Florida Bar | 502 U.S. 104 | | 6 Nov 1991 | 4 Dec 1991 | One line. |
| Ohio v. Huertas | 498 U.S. 336 | | 16 Jan 1991 | 22 Jan 1991 | One line. |
| Parker v. Duggar | 498 U.S. 308 | | 7 Nov 1990 | 22 Jan 1991 | |
| White v. United States | 439 U.S. 5 | | 3 Oct 1989 | 16 Oct 1989 | One line. White dissented without an opinion. |

### Other cases dismissed as improvidently granted since 2001

The following cases were dismissed as improvidently granted by the Court through a docket order rather than a published opinion. The Supreme Court's online docket search system "contains complete information regarding the status of cases filed since the beginning of the 2001 Term". Orders from before 2001 may appear instead in the United States Reports.
| Case name | Order | Granted | Argued | Decided | Notes |
| Ardoin v. Robinson | 21-1596 | 28 Jun 2022 | N/A | 26 Jun 2023 | One paragraph/docket order |
| PEM Entities LLC v. Levin | 16-492 | 27 Jun 2017 | N/A | 10 Aug 2017 | One line/docket order. |
| Visa Inc. v. OsbornVisa Inc. v. Stoumbos | 580 U.S. 993 | 28 Jun 2016 | N/A | 17 Nov 2016 | Docket order with explanation. |
| Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS, Inc. | 573 U.S. 988 | 10 Mar 2014 | N/A | 29 Sep 2014 | One line/docket order. |
| Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice | 571 U.S. 985 | 27 Jun 2013 | N/A | 4 Nov 2013 | One line/docket order. Before the DIG, the Court certified a question of Oklahoma law to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, and received its response. |
| McCarver v. North Carolina | 533 U.S. 975 | 26 Mar 2001 | N/A | 25 Sep 2001 | One line/docket order. |