9robes

The Court rejected the idea that how much a state funds an entity should determine its status. New Jersey’s funding of NJ Transit varied wildly over 35 years from 15 to 46 percent of the budget. Where would you draw the line? And it would be absurd if NJ Transit was part of the state in 2010 (when funding was high) but not in 2015 (when funding was lower). The relevant question is formal legal res...

This case sits at the intersection of two deeply held values: the right of parents to be involved in their children’s lives, and the interest in protecting vulnerable students who may not be safe at home. The Court sided with the parents, finding that California’s blanket policy of withholding information about a child’s gender transition likely violates both religious freedom and the constitution...

This case answers a narrow but important question: if you’re a private company doing work for the federal government and you get sued, you can’t immediately appeal to a higher court just because you say the government told you to do it. You have to go through the trial first, make your case there, and appeal afterward like everyone else. The deeper issue is about accountability. When the governmen...

This case matters because it draws a line that affects every criminal defendant who takes the stand. If testimony stretches across an overnight break, your lawyer can still advise on whether to take a plea deal, how to handle the judge’s evidence rules, and what overall trial strategy should be. But a lawyer cannot use that break to help polish, practice, or rework what is already said or what is...

The nuance here lies in understanding what curing a jurisdictional defect actually means, and how that doctrine interacts with the concepts of finality and interlocutory orders. The Court's holding establishes that a jurisdictional defect can be cured only when the curative action is, first, proper, not erroneous, and second, final, not subject to reversal on appeal. In Caterpillar, the defend...

This case comes down to a simple question: if a postal worker deliberately withholds your mail, can you sue the government? The Supreme Court says no. By reading "loss" and "miscarriage" broadly enough to cover intentional conduct, the majority effectively closes the courthouse door on people like Konan, regardless of how badly a postal employee behaves. The dissent's conce...

This decision establishes that broad emergency language does not automatically encompass the power to tax. The Court drew a firm line: even sweeping terms like “regulate importation” do not include tariffs absent clear congressional authorization, particularly when core Article I taxing powers are at stake. The ruling preserves presidential flexibility in other respects. The Court did not disturb...

In this case, the hard part isn’t just what the Constitution requires. It’s how much room federal judges have to second-guess what state courts already decided. That’s the nuance here: even if you think a trial should have gone differently, federal law sets a high bar before a federal court can step in and order a new trial. music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The disagreement between the majority and Justice Jackson highlights an important methodological tension. How broadly should courts interpret federal rules when checking for conflicts? For lawyers and litigants, this case confirms that the notice pleading system established by the 1938 federal rules sets a ceiling on what federal courts can require at the complaint stage. States cannot condition a...

The Supreme Court held that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) constitutes criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's decision, concluding that the MVRA's text and structure—including its labeling of restitution as a "penalty," its placement in the criminal code, its imposition at sente...

This decision brings clarity to a question that had divided federal courts: you can’t wait indefinitely to challenge even a completely invalid judgment. The “reasonable time” requirement applies across the board, though what counts as reasonable will depend on the circumstances—particularly whether you knew about the judgment and had a fair opportunity to challenge it earlier. music for the podcas...

The Supreme Court held that as a candidate for office, Congressman Michael Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election. The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision that had dismissed the case for lack of standing. The Court concluded that candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules governing vote counting in their electio...

The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's emergency aid exception permits police officers to enter a home without a warrant when they have an "objectively reasonable basis for believing" that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. The Court rejected both a lower "reasonable suspicion" standard and a "probable cause" standard, reaffirming the standard e...

The Supreme Court held that Congress did not clearly authorize convictions for a single act that violates both provisions. The Court applied the Blockburger presumption, which holds that Congress ordinarily does not intend to punish the same offense under two different statutes. Finding no clear congressional intent to overcome this presumption in the statutory text, structure, or legislative hist...

This case revolves around a highly technical feature of federal law governing how prisoners challenge their convictions. Congress created parallel systems: one for people convicted in state court and another for people convicted in federal court. Then Congress added gatekeeping rules to prevent prisoners from filing challenge after challenge indefinitely. But Congress wrote these gatekeeping rules...

The Supreme Court granted the Government's applications for partial stays of three universal injunctions that had blocked enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160 on birthright citizenship. The Court held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789, and limited the injunctions to provide relief...

The Supreme Court held that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers whose appointment by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is consistent with the Appointments Clause. The Court found that Task Force members are subject to the Secretary's supervision and direction through the Secretary's authority to remove them at will and to review and block their...

The Supreme Court dug into a tricky question about who gets to set fees on phone and internet companies to pay for universal service programs. At issue was whether Congress handed too much lawmaking power to the Federal Communications Commission, and then whether the FCC handed too much of its power to a private group that crunches the numbers. Justice Kagan, writing for the Court’s majority, said...

The Supreme Court held that parents challenging the Montgomery County Board of Education's introduction of "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks in elementary schools, along with the Board's decision to withhold opt-outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. The Court found that the Board's policies substantially interfere with parents' right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, crea...

This case turned on a key detail in the law: it only places a small hurdle on adults, while giving the state room to protect kids from seeing explicit material online. Texas passed a law that says certain websites with sexually explicit content need to check IDs or use data from a purchase to confirm you’re at least 18. The Supreme Court’s majority said that requirement touches adults’ speech only...

The Supreme Court took up a subtle question about who gets the benefit of newer, lighter penalties under a law called the First Step Act. The question wasn’t a big headline grabber—it was about whether a prison term counts as “imposed” if a judge later wiped it away. By limiting retroactivity to those without valid sentences on the Act’s effective date, Congress balanced the general presumption ag...

The Court held that the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court determined that the provision lacks the required clear rights-creating language necessary for individuals to bring private enforcement actions against state officials. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decisio...

Ruben Gutierrez wanted to test DNA evidence in his case after his conviction, but Texas law put up a high wall. The state said you have to prove you’re innocent before you can even ask for new DNA testing. That rule wasn’t about whether the test would show who did it, but about who gets to make the request in the first place. This approach reflects Texas’s legislative choice to reserve DNA testing...

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Fourth Circuit's dismissal of Riley's petition for review. The Court held that (1) a BIA order denying deferral of removal in "withholding-only" proceedings is not a "final order of removal" under 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1), and (2) the 30-day filing deadline under §1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional require...

The Supreme Court held that a federal court may authorize substitute service of process by mail and email on the PLO’s U.S. representative under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act when ordinary methods fail. music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras