On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Slaughter (No. 25-332) that statutory restrictions limiting the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) violate Article II of the Constitution. By a 6–3 vote, the Court overruled its nearly ninety-year-old decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, concluding that Congress may not insulate FTC Commissioners from presidential removal through a “for-cause” removal provision. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in full and by Justice Thomas except as to Part III. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. The decision marks one of the Court’s most significant separation of powers rulings in decades, substantially expanding presidential control over independent executive agencies while narrowing the constitutional foundation for statutory removal protections.

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Cook (No. 25A312) that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook may remain in office pending litigation challenging her removal proceedings. By a 5–4 vote, the Court declined to stay a preliminary injunction preserving Cook’s position, concluding that the government had not demonstrated that extraordinary relief was warranted before the merits of the dispute could be fully litigated. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion. 

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365) that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett. Justice Jackson filed a separate concurrence, joined in part by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissent, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. In other words, the Court decided the case by both a 6-3 and a 5-4 margin, depending on the specific legal grounds: 5-4 on the core constitutional question of whether the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children of non-citizens; 6-3 on whether the executive order violated federal (statutory) law, with Justice Kavanaugh joining the constitutional majority to invalidate the President’s policy on statutory grounds.

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held 6–3 in Chatrie v. United States (No. 25-112) that law enforcement’s acquisition of Google Location History through a geofence warrant constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search.” Importantly, however, the Court did not hold that geofence warrants are categorically unconstitutional. Instead, after concluding that the Government conducted a Fourth Amendment search, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the particular warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements.

As signaled in Dykema’s March 2026 edition, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport, II (No. 24-1238) arises from a highway accident in which Petitioner Montgomery was struck by a vehicle operated by an employee of Respondent Caribe Transport II, LLC, which had been selected by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., a freight broker that arranged the shipment. The case asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts common law negligent selection claims against freight brokers.

On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties (No. 25-83) that a federal court that stays a case pending arbitration under § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting arbitration award, even if the post-arbitration motions would not independently satisfy federal subject matter jurisdiction. Justice Sotomayor authored the Court’s unanimous opinion. The decision clarifies that a stay under § 3 suspends—rather than terminates—the federal action, allowing the district court to supervise the arbitration through its conclusion.

On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Pung v. Isabella County (No. 25-95) that when the government sells a property in a tax auction to collect unpaid taxes, the Fifth Amendment generally measures “just compensation” by the amount realized at the tax sale auction, not the property’s fair market value—so long as the auction was fairly conducted in light of the nation’s historical tax sale practices. The decision rejects a significant expansion of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause that could have required governments to compensate former property owners based on appraised market value rather than the auction sales price. At the same time, the Court emphasized that the Constitution still requires a fair auction process and left open what that requirement may entail. The Court, therefore, rejected Petitioner’s argument that he was constitutionally entitled to recover the difference between the auction price and the home’s alleged market value. Because the lower courts may not have fully considered whether the auction procedures used in this case were fair, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

On May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock (No. 24–935) that a worker may qualify for the transportation worker exemption in § 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) even if the worker never personally crosses state lines or transports goods across state borders. In the opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the Court concluded that the relevant inquiry is not whether the worker’s own route is interstate, but whether the worker plays a direct and necessary role in the interstate movement of goods.