If you get what you paid for, can you still cry fraud? The Supreme Court answered that question in Kousisis v. United States, unanimously holding that the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, does not require a scheme to cause financial loss. Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett affirmed that intent to harm is not a necessary element of wire fraud, thereby significantly expanding the statute’s reach. Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Expands Scope of Wire Fraud
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Heightened Burden for Reverse Discrimination Plaintiffs
The Supreme Court issued a unanimous employment law decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their membership in a majority or minority group. The decisive Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s imposition of a heightened evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Heightened Burden for Reverse Discrimination Plaintiffs
Decision Alert: Retirees Cannot Bring a Claim Under the ADA as a “Qualified Individual”
In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Court held 7-2 that a retiree is not a “qualified individual” under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as the statute applies only to current employees or those actively seeking employment.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Retirees Cannot Bring a Claim Under the ADA as a “Qualified Individual”
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules Texas Lacks Standing to Challenge Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Decision
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the State of Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd., a private Texas-based company involved in oil and gas extraction and production, lack standing to challenge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decision to license a private nuclear waste storage facility in West Texas. Writing for the majority in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, Justice Kavanaugh concluded that neither Texas nor Fasken qualified as “aggrieved parties” under the Hobbs Act. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules Texas Lacks Standing to Challenge Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Decision
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Dismisses Labcorp v. Davis as Improvidently Granted
On June 5, 2025, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis as improvidently granted—despite having already granted certiorari and heard oral argument in the case on April 29, 2025. The Court did not explain its reasoning or disclose the vote breakdown. However, Justice Kavanaugh’s lone, solo dissent sheds light on the possible rationale behind the dismissal and defends the importance of the question presented.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Dismisses Labcorp v. Davis as Improvidently Granted
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Calls for Judicial Deference to Agencies’ Factual Findings and Interpretation of Procedural Requirements
In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the Supreme Court unanimously determined 8-0 that the D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Surface Transportation Board (STB) the substantial judicial deference required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The D.C. Circuit had interpreted NEPA as requiring the STB to consider environmental effects beyond its regulatory purview—specifically, the potential impacts of upstream oil extraction and downstream refining—before approving the construction of a railway.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Calls for Judicial Deference to Agencies’ Factual Findings and Interpretation of Procedural Requirements
Supreme Court Hears Argument on Nationwide Scope of Injunction
On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on three related emergency applications—Trump v. CASA, Inc.(No. 24A884); Trump v. Washington (No. 24A885); and Trump v. New Jersey (No. 24A886)—arising from President Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order restricting birthright citizenship. As Dykema previously reported, the case raises a critical legal question: whether a federal district court may issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions and, if so, under what legal framework such relief is justified.Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Argument on Nationwide Scope of Injunction
Supreme Court Weighs Procedure for Reopened Federal Appeals
The Supreme Court is currently considering a procedural question that could significantly affect how appeals are handled when litigants miss filing deadlines due to delayed notice of judgment. In Parrish v. United States (No. 24-275), the Justices will decide whether a litigant who timely files a notice of appeal after the ordinary deadline—but before a district court formally reopens the appeal period—must later file a second, duplicative notice once the period is officially reopened.Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Procedure for Reopened Federal Appeals
Supreme Court Weighs Certification of a Class Including Uninjured Plaintiffs
In Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (No. 24-304), the Supreme Court has the opportunity to decide whether a federal court may certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury. If the Court reaches the question presented, its ruling has the potential to send shockwaves through the high-stakes world of class action litigation, where defendants are often pressured to settle claims regardless of their merit when faced with potentially catastrophic damages awards. But a gleaming procedural infirmity appears likely to prevent the Court from doing so.Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Certification of a Class Including Uninjured Plaintiffs
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Medicare DSH Reimbursement—Key Implications for Hospitals in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy
On April 29, in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court held in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy (No. 23-715) that the “Medicare fraction” of the Medicare program includes only those patients who were eligible to receive supplementary social income (SSI) payments during the month of their hospitalization, as opposed to patients who were merely enrolled in the SSI system at the time of their hospitalization.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Medicare DSH Reimbursement—Key Implications for Hospitals in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy