In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court is examining how far states may go in regulating licensed concealed-carry firearms after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The case challenges Hawaii and California laws that restrict concealed carry in numerous “sensitive places” and, more significantly, prohibit licensed individuals from carrying firearms onto private property open to the public unless the owner gives express permission. The case places front and center a fundamental question: when does a state’s definition of property rights impermissibly burden Second Amendment rights?Continue Reading When Property Rules Shape Gun Rights: The Supreme Court Considers Wolford v. Lopez
Decision 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 Judgments
Supreme Court Weighs Extent of President’s Authority to Impose Tariffs During Proclaimed National Emergencies
On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. VOS Selections (consolidated as No. 24-1287) to consider whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose trade tariffs pursuant to declared national emergencies. If the Court concludes that the tariffs are statutorily authorized, the Justices will then decide whether the tariffs constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the President. So far, this is the most important case the Justices have agreed to hear this term.Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Extent of President’s Authority to Impose Tariffs During Proclaimed National Emergencies
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 Judgments
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 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 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 Considers Standing to Challenge Clean Air Act Waiver Based on Market Impact
The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 24-7), a case examining whether economic harm stemming from market forces influenced by environmental regulation can support Article III standing. At issue is California’s authority to enforce its own emission standards, through a waiver granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Standing to Challenge Clean Air Act Waiver Based on Market Impact
Supreme Court Considers Nondelegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Program
In a case with potentially sweeping implications for administrative and constitutional law, the Supreme Court is weighing whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) administration of universal telecommunications services violates the nondelegation doctrine—a principle that limits Congress’s ability to transfer legislative authority to agencies or private entities.Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Nondelegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Program