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.