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.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds the Fourteenth Amendment Guarantees Birthright Citizenship
Andrew T. VanEgmond
Andrew VanEgmond is a Member in Dykema's Ann Arbor office. His practice focuses on automotive class actions, antitrust, products liability, employment litigation, evictions, health care matters, and other complex litigation. His research and drafting skills are central to his Dykema teams’ briefing and client advice.
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies That Rooker-Feldman Can Bar Federal Court Review of Non-Final State Court Judgments
On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical Systems, concluding that the long-maligned Rooker-Feldman doctrine strictly bars a federal court collateral attack on a state court judgment, even when that judgment remains subject to further review in the state’s appellate courts. The Court resolved a circuit split over when the doctrine attaches and reaffirmed that litigants generally cannot use a federal district court as an alternative forum to challenge an adverse state court judgment while state appellate proceedings remain available. Although the Court described its holding as a narrow application of existing precedent, the decision reinforces the doctrine’s continued vitality.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies That Rooker-Feldman Can Bar Federal Court Review of Non-Final State Court JudgmentsDecision Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Equitable Tolling to Extend 30-Day Deadline to Remove to Federal Court
The Supreme Court recently decided Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (No. 24-783), holding that the equitable tolling doctrine cannot be invoked to extend the 30-day deadline for removing a case from state to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The decision clarifies the finality of removal decisions and reinforces the availability of federal jurisdiction based on the procedural framework Congress enacted—not equitable exceptions fashioned by the courts.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Equitable Tolling to Extend 30-Day Deadline to Remove to Federal CourtDecision Alert: Supreme Court Strikes Down Concealed Carry Firearm Ban
In Wolford v. Lopez (24-1046), the Supreme Court addressed whether a state may prohibit carrying firearms on others’ private property open to the public without the owners’ permission. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Hawaii violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by prohibiting individuals licensed to carry concealed handguns from doing so without first receiving the property owner’s express authorization. Justice Alito authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Additionally, Justice Barrett filed a concurrence, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch as to Part II-B. Justice Kagan dissented, and Justice Jackson filed a separate dissent joined by Justice Sotomayor.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Strikes Down Concealed Carry Firearm BanDecision Alert: Supreme Court Holds President Not Authorized To Impose Tariffs Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
As summarized in Dykema’s December 2025 edition, the Supreme Court heard oral argument this fall in two consolidated cases (Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. VOS Selections) that presented the question of whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs. In a 6-3 decision out last month, the Supreme Court held that it does not.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds President Not Authorized To Impose Tariffs Under the International Emergency Economic Powers ActThe Supreme Court Reaches the Merits of Birthright Citizenship in Trump v. Barbara
The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case pitting President Trump’s Executive Order barring persons born in the United States from receiving citizenship if their parents lack legal status against the Fourteenth Amendment’s “birthright citizenship” clause. When this Executive Order first came before the Supreme Court last year on a procedural question, the Court curtailed the reach of universal injunctions issued by federal courts. See Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025). This time around, Barbara squarely presents the question of the constitutionality of the Executive Order. And, in an unprecedented move, President Trump attended the oral argument to watch Solicitor General John Sauer defend his Executive Order.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Reaches the Merits of Birthright Citizenship in Trump v. BarbaraEnbridge Energy: Can Equitable Tolling Salvage a Defendant’s Untimely Removal to Federal Court?
The Supreme Court heard argument in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (No. 24-783), a case that presents a deceptively narrow procedural question with potentially significant consequences for federal jurisdiction: whether the 30-day deadline for removal set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) is subject to equitable tolling. The case arises from high-profile litigation brought by the Michigan Attorney General seeking to decommission Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline, but the Court’s resolution is likely to reverberate far beyond the energy sector.
Continue Reading Enbridge Energy: Can Equitable Tolling Salvage a Defendant’s Untimely Removal to Federal Court?Supreme Court Considers Whether Idaho’s Ban on Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports Violates Equal Protection
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 ProtectionDecision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That There Is a “Reasonable Time” Limit To Challenge Void Judgments
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 JudgmentsDecision Alert: Supreme Court Broadens False Claims Act Reach To E-Rate Reimbursement Requests
In a significant and unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court held that reimbursement requests submitted to the E-Rate program qualify as “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA) if any portion of the funds involved originates from the U.S. Treasury. The decision in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath is poised to have far-reaching implications for entities that receive federal funds through intermediaries, heightening litigation and raising the stakes for FCA compliance.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Broadens False Claims Act Reach To E-Rate Reimbursement Requests