The U.S. Supreme Court issued six opinions on Friday, narrowing the authority of federal agencies and clarifying the limits of judicial discretion in criminal sentencing. In Esteras v. United States, the justices ruled 7–2 that judges revoking supervised release may rely only on sentencing factors expressly listed in federal statute, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing that Congress’s omission of retribution from that list bars courts from considering it. Regulatory powers also came under scrutiny. In a 6–3 decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp., Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that district courts are free to interpret the Telephone Consumer Protection Act without deferring to the Federal Communications Commission, stating that the Hobbs Act does not tie judges to an agency’s reading of the law. In Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court voted 7–2 to give fuel producers standing to challenge the EPA’s approval of California vehicle-emissions rules, finding the companies had shown plausible financial harm. With just over a week remaining in its term, the Court still has 10 opinions to release. High-profile cases awaiting resolution include the Trump administration’s bid to enforce an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, a challenge to Texas’s requirement that adults submit personal data to access online pornography, parents’ efforts to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed storybook lessons in Maryland, and a dispute over Louisiana’s congressional map. The Court traditionally aims to complete its docket by the end of June.