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”
Kyle Asher
Clients come to Kyle Asher with their most pressing appeals, class actions, and regulatory matters. Although his clients (which include some of the country’s largest automakers, universities, and insurers) and the venues he represents them in (ranging from federal courts to state administrative bodies) may vary, what sets him apart from other attorneys does not.
Supreme Court Weighs Prohibition on Criminal Defense Attorney-Client Communication
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
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
Decision Alert: The D.C. Circuit Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Small Refinery Exemption Challenges Under the Clean Air Act
In EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refin., L.L.C., the Supreme Court ruled that all challenges to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denials of small refinery exemption (SRE) petitions under the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program must be brought exclusively in the D.C. Circuit. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas—joined by seven other Justices—held that while the denials may affect individual refineries, they rest on determinations with “nationwide scope or effect,” triggering D.C. Circuit jurisdiction under the Act.Continue Reading Decision Alert: The D.C. Circuit Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Small Refinery Exemption Challenges Under the Clean Air Act
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Eases Appeal Rules for Litigants Finding Missed Notice Unnecessary After Reopened Period
In an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court in Parrish v. United States held that a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline—but before a district court formally reopens the appeal period—is not required to file a second notice once the appeal period is reopened.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Eases Appeal Rules for Litigants Finding Missed Notice Unnecessary After Reopened Period
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
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
Supreme Court Considers Venue and Nationwide Applicability of EPA Actions in Renewable Fuel Case
In Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, the Supreme Court is weighing whether legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) denial of Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) exemptions for small oil refineries must be filed exclusively in the D.C. Circuit under the Clean Air Act (CAA).Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Venue and Nationwide Applicability of EPA Actions in Renewable Fuel Case
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Narrows EPA Authority Under Clean Water Act in 5-4 Decision
In the closely watched case, City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) does not authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to condition compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits on the quality of the receiving waters. The ruling is expected to significantly impact wastewater treatment facilities nationwide by narrowing the scope of EPA enforcement authority.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Narrows EPA Authority Under Clean Water Act in 5-4 Decision