Heming Xu

Subscribe to Heming Xu's Posts

In the consolidated cases U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the Supreme Court wrestles with an Article III standing issue and whether the Fifth Circuit was correct in rolling back decisions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to the availability of abortion medications.…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Focuses on Standing Issue in Abortion Medication Case

In Erlinger v. United States, the Supreme Court addresses whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were committed on different occasions as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).…

Continue Reading Supreme Court Takes on Armed Criminal Career Act and the Sixth Amendment

In Harrow v. Dept. of Defense, the Supreme Court will decide whether the 60-day deadline to appeal a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) is jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional.…

Continue Reading Supreme Court to Determine Whether Administrative Appeal Deadline Is Jurisdictional

In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the Supreme Court considers when a state actor crosses the line from persuasion to coercion in encouraging private parties to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), under the leadership of Maria Vullo, investigated insurance programs endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA). After the Parkland shooting, Vullo issued guidance and statements encouraging banks and insurers to assess and potentially end affiliations with gun promotion organizations by citing reputational risks. Several firms cut ties with the NRA, prompting the NRA to file suit against Vullo, claiming their free speech and equal protection rights had been violated.…

Continue Reading Supreme Court to Determine Whether State Government Violated the First Amendment Through Coercion

On March 15, 2024, the Court in Lindke v. Freed unanimously held that a government official may block members of the public from the official’s social media page because social media is not “public fora” for purposes of the “state action” doctrine when the official speaks in their capacity as a private citizen, even if the post is about government concerns.…

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision Establishing New Test to Determine State Action Liability in Lindke and O’Connor-Ratcliff

In Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court will decide whether interactions with federal government officials transformed social media content moderation decisions into state action and whether those decisions violate the First Amendment.…

Continue Reading Supreme Court to Examine Social Media Content Moderation as State Action

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously held in McIntosh v. U.S. that a district court’s failure to enter a preliminary order as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B) does not bar a judge from later ordering forfeiture at the sentencing hearing. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, which affirmed the Second Circuit’s decision.…

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Affirms Tardy Forfeiture Order

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, MO, that a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not require a plaintiff to prove “significant” or “serious” harm. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, which reversed the Eighth Circuit’s decision and remanded.…

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds Title VII Claims Do Not Require “Significant” Or “Serious” Harm