The Supreme Court normally DIGs a case through a
per curiam decision, usually without giving reasons, 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 } --> • 1. Did the Seventh Circuit violate this Court's precedent on harmless error when it focused its harmless error analysis solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error (the erroneous admission of trial counsel's statements that his client would lose the case and should plead guilty for their truth) on this jury at all? • Did the Seventh Circuit violate Mr. Vasquez's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by determining that Mr. Vasquez should have been convicted without considering the effects of the district court's error on the jury that heard the case?}} • Does imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a thirteen-year-old for a non-homicide violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the freakishly rare imposition of such a sentence reflects a national consensus on the reduced criminal culpability of children? • Given the extreme rarity of a life imprisonment without parole sentence imposed on a 13-year-old child for a non-homicide and the unavailability of substantive review in any other federal court, should this Court grant review of a recently evolved Eighth Amendment claim where the state court has refused to do so?}} • Question 1: Whether a defendant corporation and its agents can constitute an "enterprise" under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 ("RICO"), in light of the settled rule that a RICO defendant must "conduct" or "participate in" the affairs of some larger enterprise and not just its own affairs. • Question 2 (not granted): Whether plaintiffs state proximately caused injuries to business or property by alleging that the hourly wages they voluntarily accepted were too low.}} • Question 1: In a case brought by a Mexican national whose rights were adjudicated in the
Avena Judgment, must a court in the United States apply as the rule of decision, notwithstanding any inconsistent United States precedent, the
Avena holding that the United States courts must review and reconsider the national's conviction and sentence, without resort to procedural default doctrines? • Question 2: In a case brought by a foreign national of a State party to the
Vienna Convention [on Consular Relations], should a court in the United States give effect to the
LaGrand and Avena Judgments as a matter of international judicial comity and in the interest of uniform treaty interpretation?}} • Question 1: Can a state court, consistent with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, refuse to instruct a jury in a death penalty case on at least one lesser included offense that is recognized in state law and supported by the evidence? • Question 2 (directed by the Court): Was petitioner's federal constitutional claim properly raised before the Mississippi Supreme Court for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1257?}} • Question 1: Whether a state commission's action relating to the enforcement of a previously approved section 252 interconnection agreement is a "determination under section 252" and thus is reviewable in federal court under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 252(e)(6). • Question 2: Whether a state commission's acceptance of Congress's invitation to participate in implementing a federal regulatory scheme that provides that state commission determinations are reviewable in federal court constitutes a waiver of
Eleventh Amendment immunity. • Question 3: Whether an official capacity action seeking prospective relief against state public utility commissioners for alleged ongoing violations of federal law in performing federal regulatory functions under the federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 can be maintained under the
Ex parte Young doctrine.}}
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. } --> --> == See also ==