A case the Court dismissed, which would have considered whether under the Federal Arbitration Act, a party is required to demonstrate prejudice after the opposing party waives its contractual right to arbitrate by participating in litigation.

A case in which the Court held that the Nevada law requiring elected officials to disqualify themselves when they are asked to vote on matters that present a conflict of interest was constitutional.

A case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute banning the sale, transmission or use of prescription drug user data violated protected speech of the pharmaceutical research companies, manufacturers and others who use that data.

A case in which the Court held that securities fraud plaintiffs need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification.

A case in which the Court held that a federal sentencing court must determine whether an offense under state law is a "serious drug offense" within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act by consulting the maximum sentence applicable at the time of the defendant's conviction.

A case in which the Court held that the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege does not apply to the general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian Tribes.

A case in which the Court that held the Clean Air Act bars suits by governmental bodies and private parties seeking to curb emissions from utilities via the federal common law.

A case in which the Court held that a district court may not give a defendant a longer prison sentence based on speculation about if and when the defendant would be able to participate in an inmate drug rehabilitation program.

A case in which the Court held that a challenge to a patent's validity must offer clear and convincing evidence.

A case in which the Court held that federal law requires local telephone companies to allow new competitors in their markets to link to their existing networks through connecting wires at low, government-regulated rates.

A case in which the Court held that generic drug makers cannot be sued for not warning about potentially dangerous side effects on their drug labels, even when they follow federal rules that only require their labels to match those of their brand-name equivalents.