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 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
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
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
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court heldthat the Hobbs Act, which grants federal courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review agency orders, does not prevent district courts from independently evaluating an agency’s interpretation of the law in civil enforcement proceedings. Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds That Agencies’ Interpretations of the Hobbs Act Do Not Bind District Courts in Civil Enforcement Proceedings
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”
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
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
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