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 Ban
Decision 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 Judgments
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: Supreme Court Unanimously Expands Scope of Wire Fraud
If you get what you paid for, can you still cry fraud? The Supreme Court answered that question in Kousisis v. United States, unanimously holding that the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, does not require a scheme to cause financial loss. Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett affirmed that intent to harm is not a necessary element of wire fraud, thereby significantly expanding the statute’s reach. Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Expands Scope of Wire Fraud
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Dismisses Labcorp v. Davis as Improvidently Granted
On June 5, 2025, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis as improvidently granted—despite having already granted certiorari and heard oral argument in the case on April 29, 2025. The Court did not explain its reasoning or disclose the vote breakdown. However, Justice Kavanaugh’s lone, solo dissent sheds light on the possible rationale behind the dismissal and defends the importance of the question presented.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Dismisses Labcorp v. Davis as Improvidently Granted
Supreme Court Weighs Certification of a Class Including Uninjured Plaintiffs
In Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (No. 24-304), the Supreme Court has the opportunity to decide whether a federal court may certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury. If the Court reaches the question presented, its ruling has the potential to send shockwaves through the high-stakes world of class action litigation, where defendants are often pressured to settle claims regardless of their merit when faced with potentially catastrophic damages awards. But a gleaming procedural infirmity appears likely to prevent the Court from doing so.Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Certification of a Class Including Uninjured Plaintiffs
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 Whether EPA’s Collective Disapprovals of State Environmental Plans Create a Nationwide Action Subject to D.C. Circuit Review
In a pair of consolidated cases—Oklahoma v. EPA and PacifiCorp v. EPA—the Supreme Court is considering the scope of the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) judicial review provision, and whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) coordinated disapproval of state implementation plans (SIPs) constitutes a “nationally applicable” action or one of “nationwide scope or effect” that must be challenged in the D.C. Circuit.Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Whether EPA’s Collective Disapprovals of State Environmental Plans Create a Nationwide Action Subject to D.C. Circuit Review