On March 4, the Supreme Court heard argument in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport, II, a case that presents an important question at the intersection of federal preemption and state tort law: whether common-law negligent selection claims against freight brokers are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The dispute centers on whether such claims impermissibly regulate a broker’s core services—particularly the selection of motor carriers—or instead fall within the statute’s safety savings clause preserving state authority over motor vehicle safety.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Whether Negligent Selection Claims Are Preempted By the FAAAA
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Vacates Stay on Injunction to Block California Transgender Nondisclosure Policy
On March 2, 2026, in Mirabelli v. Bonta (No. 25A810), the Supreme Court blocked a California law that prohibited public school officials from disclosing a student’s gender identity at school to their parents without the student’s consent, even if the parents expressly asked for the information.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Vacates Stay on Injunction to Block California Transgender Nondisclosure PolicySupreme Court Considers Whether Idaho’s Ban on Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports Violates Equal Protection
In Little v. Hecox, the Supreme Court is considering whether Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act violates the Equal Protection Clause by barring transgender women and girls from participating on female-designated sports teams in public schools. The case, argued alongside West Virginia v. B.P.J., places before the Court a closely watched dispute at the intersection of equal protection doctrine, sex-based classifications, and athletic regulation.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Whether Idaho’s Ban on Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports Violates Equal ProtectionDecision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That There Is a “Reasonable Time” Limit To Challenge Void Judgments
On January 20, 2026, in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, the Supreme Court unanimously held that litigants do not have unlimited time to challenge judgments as void; instead, they must file any such challenge within a “reasonable time.” The decision resolved an 11-1 circuit split, affirming the Sixth Circuit and concluding that all the other circuit courts to address this question have been improperly allowing litigants to seek to vacate void judgments with no time limit at all.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That There Is a “Reasonable Time” Limit To Challenge Void JudgmentsGrant Alert
Salazar v. Paramount Global
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that could significantly clarify the scope of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) and its application to modern digital media platforms. The case asks who qualifies as a “consumer” under a federal privacy statute enacted in the bygone videotape era but increasingly invoked in litigation involving online content and data sharing.
Continue Reading Grant AlertGrant Alerts
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
Supreme Court Debates Applicability of Federal Rule to Void Default Judgments
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 JudgmentsSupreme 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 CommunicationDecision 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 ActDecision 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