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
November Grant Alerts
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
Supreme Court Hears First Amendment Challenge to Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban
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
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clears the Way for Executive Control
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
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules District Courts Lack Power to Issue Universal Injunctions
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal district courts lack authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal (or nationwide) injunctions. Justice Barrett wrote the Court’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh filed separate concurrences. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Justice Jackson also authored a separate dissent.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules District Courts Lack Power to Issue Universal Injunctions
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Nondelegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Program
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s Universal Service Program (USP) does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion in FCC v. Consumers’ Research and Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers’ Research, with Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson filing separate concurrences. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Nondelegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Program
Decision Alert: The Supreme Court Holds That Fuel Producers Have Standing to Sue EPA
The Supreme Court held 7-2 in Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency that fuel producers have standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s approval of California’s vehicle emission regulations. Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson filed separate dissents.Continue Reading Decision Alert: The Supreme Court Holds That Fuel Producers Have Standing to Sue EPA
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Rule 60(b)’s High Bar to Reopen Final Judgments
In a unanimous and notable decision, the Supreme Court in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman reaffirmed the strict threshold imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), holding that a party may not evade its “extraordinary circumstances” requirement simply by seeking to amend a complaint post-judgment. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas rejected the Second Circuit’s attempt to harmonize Rule 60’s demand for finality with Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Rule 60(b)’s High Bar to Reopen Final Judgments
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Venue for Environmental Challenges
In a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held in consolidated cases Oklahoma v. EPA and PacifiCorp v. EPA that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s disapprovals of 21 individual state implementation plans (SIPs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) are “locally or regionally applicable” actions, and, as such, must be challenged in their respective regional circuit courts—even when the EPA publishes them in a single, consolidated Federal Register notice.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Venue for Environmental Challenges
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Retailers’ Right To Judicial Review Under The Tobacco Control Act
The Supreme Court held in Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. that retailers of e-cigarette products are “persons adversely affected” by an FDA denial order under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA), and therefore have standing to seek judicial review.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Retailers’ Right To Judicial Review Under The Tobacco Control Act