9robes

In this case, the city had a rule that street performers needed a permit. But it turned out that some acts got fast-tracked permits while others were put on a waiting list. The Supreme Court said that kind of unequal treatment raises a red flag under the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

In a close look at how the Clean Air Act treats pollution from burning plants and trees, the court decided whether the government can treat those emissions differently from the smokestacks of a coal plant. The current legal debate centers on whether invalidating California's waiver would actually change automakers' manufacturing decisions enough to help fuel producers—a question that isn&#...

The heart of this decision turns on a fine line in federal drug rules—does simply handing out samples count as selling drugs to a non-patient? A group of chiropractors, who received free medicine samples to give directly to their patients, said “no.” The FDA’s rule says drug distributors must register and meet certain safety steps if they sell to anyone other than the patient. But these clinics ne...

The law often draws fine lines that can mean the difference between freedom and prison, and the Supreme Court just drew one of those lines in a case called Esteras versus United States. The ruling doesn't create technical traps for judges but ensures they apply the law as Congress intended, with appropriate review by appellate courts when mistakes occur. music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠...

The Supreme Court held that retailers who would sell a new tobacco product if not for the FDA's denial order may seek judicial review of that order under 21 U.S.C. §387l(a)(1). The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's denial of the FDA's motion to dismiss or transfer the case for lack of venue, finding that retailers are "adversely affected" by a denial order and are therefore...

Here’s the twist in the law: if you never joined the conversation when a federal agency made its decision, you can’t show up later in court to complain. In this case, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a plan to store spent nuclear fuel in West Texas. The state of Texas and a landowner group weren’t in the room when that license was granted, so the Supreme Court said they have no right to...

EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions from Clean Air Act renewable fuel requirements are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the "nationwide scope or effect" exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit rather than regional circuits. The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case. music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dim...

At the heart of this case is a fine point of law: whether the EPA’s decisions to reject Oklahoma’s and Utah’s air-quality plans should be treated as separate, local actions or lumped together into one big, national rule. The Supreme Court said these are individual, state-by-state decisions, based on detailed, local facts—and so they belong in the regional courts, not in Washington’s D.C. Circuit....

The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law (SB1) prohibiting healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to minors for the purpose of treating gender dysphoria or enabling a minor to identify with a gender inconsistent with their biological sex. The Court held that the law does not classify on the basis of sex or transgender status, is not subject to heightened scrutiny un...

The Supreme Court held that parties are entitled to a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The Court construed the PLRA to require a jury trial in such cases, finding that the statute's silence on the matter indicates Congress intended to follow the usual pr...

This case shines a light on a small but important twist in the rules for people challenging their convictions in federal court. The Supreme Court said that as soon as a judge has made a final decision on a first petition, any new petition on the same issue counts as a “second or successive” filing. This interpretation balances the twin aims of allowing meaningful collateral review while safeguardi...

At the heart of this decision is when the Tax Court can step in. Under federal law, the Tax Court can only review an IRS determination about whether it may seize assets to cover unpaid taxes — a process called a levy. In Commissioner v. Zuch, the IRS stopped its levy because the taxpayer’s debt was wiped out by earlier overpayments. This structure ensures that collection due process hearings remai...

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Eleventh Circuit's decision, holding that: (1) the law enforcement proviso in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) overrides only the intentional-tort exception in §2680(h), not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout §2680; and (2) the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits. The Court dire...

When a door closes only to be cracked open again, does your first knock still count? In Parrish v. United States, the Court said it does. A man filed his notice of appeal after the official deadline but before a judge agreed to reopen the time limit. The Court found that federal rules support this principle and that requiring a duplicate filing would create unnecessary procedural hurdles, particul...

The Court held that the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and limitations period. The Court found that the CRSC statute creates a separate settlement mechanism that authorizes the Secretary concerned to determine both the validity of CRSC claims and the amount due on them, thereb...

The Supreme Court unanimously held that schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of "bad faith or gross misjudgment" but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. The Court rejected the Eighth Circuit's application of a more demanding stand...

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a country generally can’t claim immunity when the law itself lists clear exceptions—and when the papers are served properly. The question before the justices was whether you also had to prove some extra connection, or “minimum contacts,” as a separate step. By letting the statutory exceptions themselves define when jurisdiction exists, the Court preserved the...

In Blom Bank v. Honickman, a bank asked to reopen a closed case so it could tweak its complaint. But there’s a rule that says you can only reopen a case for really rare, compelling reasons; so rare that they call them “extraordinary circumstances.” This decision provides important guidance on the balance between finality in litigation and opportunities to correct pleadings. music for the podcast p...

The Supreme Court was ready to weigh in on whether a lawsuit for damages could include people who were never hurt alongside those who actually suffered harm, but then it decided not to decide. This case reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing the need to address widespread discrimination through class actions while preventing overly broad certifications that might lead to unfair settlements or...

The Supreme Court looked at a rule from the Sixth Circuit that said people in the majority group had to show more proof than others to win a discrimination case under Title VII. Title VII's text makes no distinctions among protected-class members; it forbids discrimination "against any individual." Previous Supreme Court decisions affirm that Title VII prohibits discriminatory prefer...

Mexico's lawsuit against seven American gun manufacturers is barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The Court held that Mexico's complaint did not plausibly allege that the manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, which was necessary to trigger PLCAA's predicate exception. Without satisfying this excep...

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Wisconsin's application of its unemployment compensation tax exemption statute violated the First Amendment. The Court held that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute, which denied an exemption to Catholic Charities because they neither engaged in proselytization nor limited their charitable services to Catholics, constituted d...

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v Eagle County involved an 88-mile railroad line in Utah’s Uinta Basin. NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for major actions affecting the environment. But there's an important boundary: agencies only need to analyze environmental impacts they have the power to address. music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠ Dimitry T...

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Stamatios Kousisis and Alpha Painting and Construction Co. for wire fraud. The Court held that a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim net pecuniary loss. music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court granted the application for injunction pending further proceedings, vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case. The Court held that the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the District Court's inaction had the practical effect of refusing an injunction. The Court determined that AEA detainees...