Photo of Chantel Febus

Chantel Febus

Subscribe to Chantel Febus's Posts

Chantel Febus is a Member in Dykema’s Washington, D.C., Office and serves as the firm’s Head of East Coast Appeals. As a Member of the Appellate and Critical Motions, Business Litigation, and Government Investigations and Corporate Compliance practices, Chantel partners with clients to navigate novel legal issues and emergent legal challenges.

Contact:Read more about Chantel Febus

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…

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

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”

On November 4, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton (24-808) to consider whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes a time limit on motions seeking to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.Continue Reading Supreme Court Debates Applicability of Federal Rule to Void Default Judgments

On October 6, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Villarreal v. Texas (No. 24-557) to consider a constitutional question that could significantly affect criminal defendants’ Sixth Amendment protections. The Justices are poised to decide whether a trial court violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant from discussing his or her own testimony with counsel during an overnight trial recess before being dismissed as a witness.Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Prohibition on Criminal Defense Attorney-Client Communication

Little v. Hecox

The Court will consider whether Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which limits participation in female athletic teams to biological females, violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. The Ninth Circuit’s injunction preserved participation rights for a transgender athlete pending trial, deepening a nationwide split over the intersection of gender identity…

On October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that tests the extent of First Amendment protections for regulated professionals. After a divided Tenth Circuit panel rejected a challenge to Colorado’s so-called Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), C.R.S. §§ 12-245-101, 12-245-202, the Court is now positioned to decide “whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.”Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears First Amendment Challenge to Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban

A divided Ninth Circuit panel declined to push the pause button on a San Francisco-based district court’s nationwide injunction blocking the government from carrying out President Trump’s executive order aimed to reign in the size of the federal government through large-scale reductions in its workforce, with special focus on those federal agency “offices that perform functions not mandated by statute or other law.” A coalition of unions, nonprofits, and local governments brought the lawsuit to challenge the president’s authority to reorganize the agencies, absent congressional approval. Undeterred, the government promptly applied to the Supreme Court to freeze the injunction while its appeal before the Ninth Circuit moves forward. In arguing for the emergency relief, Solicitor General D. John Sauer called the district court’s order “flawed” and resting on an “indefensible premise” that the president needs authorization from Congress to oversee personnel decisions within the Executive Branch. In an unsigned, one-page order issued July 8, the Supreme Court seemingly had no difficulty staying the injunction, reasoning that “the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order… [is] lawful.”Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clears the Way for Executive Control