On March 2, 2026, in Mirabelli v. Bonta (No. 25A810), the Supreme Court blocked a California law that prohibited public school officials from disclosing a student’s gender identity at school to their parents without the student’s consent, even if the parents expressly asked for the information.
In Mirabelli, teachers and parents challenged the California
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Notable Business Cases the Court Granted Last Month.Continue Reading Grant Alerts
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