On June 30, 2026, the final day opinions in argued cases for the October 2025 Term were issued, the Court held in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (No. 24-43) and Little v. Hecox (No. 24-38) that state laws limiting participation on women’s and girls’ athletic teams based on biological sex do not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, and Justice Jackson filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. While some have reported the Court’s decision as a 6-3 split, that is not technically accurate. All nine Justices unanimously decided that the state laws barring transgender women and girls from female sports teams did not violate Title IX. The Court concluded that the term “sex” in Title IX refers to biological sex and that its implementing regulations allow schools to maintain separate teams for biological males and females. While the agreement on Title IX was unanimous, the Justices split 6-3 regarding the Constitution, with the majority ruling that the bans also did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Upholds State Laws Governing Participation on Women’s and Girls’ Athletic Teams Based on Biological Sex
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds Acquisition of Google Location History Through a Geofence Warrant Constitutes a Fourth Amendment Search
On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held 6–3 in Chatrie v. United States (No. 25-112) that law enforcement’s acquisition of Google Location History through a geofence warrant constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search.” Importantly, however, the Court did not hold that geofence warrants are categorically unconstitutional. Instead, after concluding that the Government conducted a Fourth Amendment search, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the particular warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds Acquisition of Google Location History Through a Geofence Warrant Constitutes a Fourth Amendment SearchDecision Alert: Supreme Court Rules Post-Trial Final Judgment Must Be Vacated if Jurisdictional Defect Lingers Through Judgment
On February 24, the Supreme Court released its unanimous decision in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, affirming the Fifth Circuit’s decision to vacate the post-trial final judgment because the district court’s erroneous dismissal of a nondiverse defendant based on improper joinder resulted in a jurisdictional defect that existed at the time of removal, which was not cured prior to final judgment.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules Post-Trial Final Judgment Must Be Vacated if Jurisdictional Defect Lingers Through JudgmentDecision Alert: Supreme Court Limits Colorado’s Conversion Therapy Ban
On March 31, the Supreme Court released its 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, holding that Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), C.R.S. §§ 12-245-101, 12-245-202, unconstitutionally regulates speech as applied to the Petitioner. The narrow ruling offers some clarification of the rules that govern speech incidental to the conduct of regulated professionals.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Limits Colorado’s Conversion Therapy BanSupreme 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 ProtectionSupreme Court Considers Whether “Final” Judgment Really Means “Final”
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”Supreme Court Hears First Amendment Challenge to Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban
On October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that tests the extent of First Amendment protections for regulated professionals. After a divided Tenth Circuit panel rejected a challenge to Colorado’s so-called Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), C.R.S. §§ 12-245-101, 12-245-202, the Court is now positioned to decide “whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.”
Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears First Amendment Challenge to Colorado Conversion Therapy BanDecision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Rule 60(b)’s High Bar to Reopen Final Judgments
In a unanimous and notable decision, the Supreme Court in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman reaffirmed the strict threshold imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), holding that a party may not evade its “extraordinary circumstances” requirement simply by seeking to amend a complaint post-judgment. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas rejected the Second Circuit’s attempt to harmonize Rule 60’s demand for finality with Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Rule 60(b)’s High Bar to Reopen Final JudgmentsDecision 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 ChallengesDecision 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