Listen to this post

In Trump v. Cook, the Supreme Court is considering whether to stay a district court order that prevents the President from removing Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook. Although the case reaches the Court at the preliminary-injunction stage, it raises a significant structural question: how far presidential removal power extends over officials serving in congressionally-designed independent institutions such as the Federal Reserve.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers the Limits of Presidential Removal Power Over the Federal Reserve
Listen to this post

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court is examining how far states may go in regulating licensed concealed-carry firearms after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The case challenges Hawaii and California laws that restrict concealed carry in numerous “sensitive places” and, more significantly, prohibit licensed individuals from carrying firearms onto private property open to the public unless the owner gives express permission. The case places front and center a fundamental question: when does a state’s definition of property rights impermissibly burden Second Amendment rights?

Continue Reading When Property Rules Shape Gun Rights: The Supreme Court Considers Wolford v. Lopez
Listen to this post

In Little v. Hecox, the Supreme Court is considering whether Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act violates the Equal Protection Clause by barring transgender women and girls from participating on female-designated sports teams in public schools. The case, argued alongside West Virginia v. B.P.J., places before the Court a closely watched dispute at the intersection of equal protection doctrine, sex-based classifications, and athletic regulation.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Whether Idaho’s Ban on Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports Violates Equal Protection
Listen to this post

On January 20, 2026, in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, the Supreme Court unanimously held that litigants do not have unlimited time to challenge judgments as void; instead, they must file any such challenge within a “reasonable time.” The decision resolved an 11-1 circuit split, affirming the Sixth Circuit and concluding that all the other circuit courts to address this question have been improperly allowing litigants to seek to vacate void judgments with no time limit at all.

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That There Is a “Reasonable Time” Limit To Challenge Void Judgments
Listen to this post

Salazar v. Paramount Global

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that could significantly clarify the scope of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) and its application to modern digital media platforms. The case asks who qualifies as a “consumer” under a federal privacy statute enacted in the bygone videotape era but increasingly invoked in litigation involving online content and data sharing.

Continue Reading Grant Alert
Listen to this post

On December 8, 2025, the Justices heard oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter (No. 25-332). The Supreme Court plans to decide (1) whether the statutory removal protections for independent, multi-member federal agencies violate the separation of powers (and, if so, whether the Supreme Court should sack its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States) and (2) whether the judiciary has the power to prevent one’s removal from public office.

Continue Reading Supreme Court To Determine Whether the President Can Remove Members of Multi-Member Federal Agencies
Listen to this post

Trump v. Barbara / Trump v. Washington

The Supreme Court granted review of President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, addressing the application of birthright citizenship. The grant follows—and has drawn heightened attention because of—the Court’s earlier decision staying a lower court’s nationwide injunction of the Executive Order. Although courts have long interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to extend citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil—with some limited exceptions—this case asks the Court to revisit that issue. The Court’s eventual decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for both the scope of executive power and the constitutional rights of individuals born in the United States.

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC

The Supreme Court will decide whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a freight broker for negligent selection of a motor carrier or driver in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC. Montgomery, a driver injured during an auto accident, sued C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., a freight broker, for negligently hiring the contractors who had caused Montgomery’s injuries. The Seventh Circuit held that the statute bars such state-law claims against freight brokers. The Supreme Court’s review will directly affect the allocation of liability in the shipping and logistics industries.

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties et al.

The Supreme Court will consider federal court jurisdiction over certain cases filed under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Second Circuit determined that a federal court that orders arbitration retains jurisdiction to decide a later application to confirm or vacate the arbitration award, even where the application does not show a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is poised to clarify what jurisdictional showing parties must make when seeking judicial review of arbitration awards.

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical Systems

Subject matter jurisdiction remains center stage on the docket in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical Systems, a case that invites review of the Fourth Circuit’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a case challenging a state district court’s consent order. The appellants argue federal jurisdiction is proper because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine should be strictly limited to judgments issued by a state’s highest court. Historically, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine has prevented lower federal courts from hearing cases that function as appeals or challenges to final state court judgments. Thus, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision will likely clarify whether the doctrine applies to judgments rendered by any state court or only those issued by a state’s highest court.

For more information, contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Monika Harris, or Sadie Betting.

Listen to this post

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. VOS Selections (consolidated as No. 24-1287) to consider whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose trade tariffs pursuant to declared national emergencies. If the Court concludes that the tariffs are statutorily authorized, the Justices will then decide whether the tariffs constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the President. So far, this is the most important case the Justices have agreed to hear this term.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Extent of President’s Authority to Impose Tariffs During Proclaimed National Emergencies
Listen to this post

In Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist (No. 24-724), the Supreme Court will determine (1) whether a district court’s judgment resolving litigation between completely diverse parties must later be vacated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if an appellate court subsequently concludes that, at the time the case was removed from state court, the case did not have complete diversity jurisdiction, and (2) whether a plaintiff may block diversity jurisdiction by updating the complaint after removal to include a valid claim against a nondiverse defendant.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Whether “Final” Judgment Really Means “Final”