On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365) that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett. Justice Jackson filed a separate concurrence, joined in part by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissent, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. In other words, the Court decided the case by both a 6-3 and a 5-4 margin, depending on the specific legal grounds: 5-4 on the core constitutional question of whether the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children of non-citizens; 6-3 on whether the executive order violated federal (statutory) law, with Justice Kavanaugh joining the constitutional majority to invalidate the President’s policy on statutory grounds.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds the Fourteenth Amendment Guarantees Birthright Citizenship
Sadie Betting
Sadie Betting is an associate in the firm’s Product Liability and Class Actions practice group. She leverages her considerable litigation experience to craft strategies that effectively navigate cases through trial and appellate proceedings.
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies That Rooker-Feldman Can Bar Federal Court Review of Non-Final State Court Judgments
On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical Systems, concluding that the long-maligned Rooker-Feldman doctrine strictly bars a federal court collateral attack on a state court judgment, even when that judgment remains subject to further review in the state’s appellate courts. The Court resolved a circuit split over when the doctrine attaches and reaffirmed that litigants generally cannot use a federal district court as an alternative forum to challenge an adverse state court judgment while state appellate proceedings remain available. Although the Court described its holding as a narrow application of existing precedent, the decision reinforces the doctrine’s continued vitality.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies That Rooker-Feldman Can Bar Federal Court Review of Non-Final State Court JudgmentsDecision Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Equitable Tolling to Extend 30-Day Deadline to Remove to Federal Court
The Supreme Court recently decided Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (No. 24-783), holding that the equitable tolling doctrine cannot be invoked to extend the 30-day deadline for removing a case from state to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The decision clarifies the finality of removal decisions and reinforces the availability of federal jurisdiction based on the procedural framework Congress enacted—not equitable exceptions fashioned by the courts.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Equitable Tolling to Extend 30-Day Deadline to Remove to Federal CourtDecision Alert: Supreme Court Strikes Down Concealed Carry Firearm Ban
In Wolford v. Lopez (24-1046), the Supreme Court addressed whether a state may prohibit carrying firearms on others’ private property open to the public without the owners’ permission. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Hawaii violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by prohibiting individuals licensed to carry concealed handguns from doing so without first receiving the property owner’s express authorization. Justice Alito authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Additionally, Justice Barrett filed a concurrence, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch as to Part II-B. Justice Kagan dissented, and Justice Jackson filed a separate dissent joined by Justice Sotomayor.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Strikes Down Concealed Carry Firearm BanGrant Alerts
With the close of the October Term 2025 (OT’25), the Supreme Court has started to assemble its growing list of cases it will hear in the next term (OT’26), including the ones summarized below. These certiorari grants signal the Court’s continuing interest in administrative law, civil procedure, and constitutional questions involving religious liberties.
Continue Reading Grant AlertsThe Supreme Court Reaches the Merits of Birthright Citizenship in Trump v. Barbara
The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case pitting President Trump’s Executive Order barring persons born in the United States from receiving citizenship if their parents lack legal status against the Fourteenth Amendment’s “birthright citizenship” clause. When this Executive Order first came before the Supreme Court last year on a procedural question, the Court curtailed the reach of universal injunctions issued by federal courts. See Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025). This time around, Barbara squarely presents the question of the constitutionality of the Executive Order. And, in an unprecedented move, President Trump attended the oral argument to watch Solicitor General John Sauer defend his Executive Order.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Reaches the Merits of Birthright Citizenship in Trump v. BarbaraEnbridge Energy: Can Equitable Tolling Salvage a Defendant’s Untimely Removal to Federal Court?
The Supreme Court heard argument in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (No. 24-783), a case that presents a deceptively narrow procedural question with potentially significant consequences for federal jurisdiction: whether the 30-day deadline for removal set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) is subject to equitable tolling. The case arises from high-profile litigation brought by the Michigan Attorney General seeking to decommission Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline, but the Court’s resolution is likely to reverberate far beyond the energy sector.
Continue Reading Enbridge Energy: Can Equitable Tolling Salvage a Defendant’s Untimely Removal to Federal Court?Grant Alert
Suncor Energy, Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder City
The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Suncor Energy, Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County (No. 25-170) places squarely before the Court one of the most consequential and rapidly evolving areas of litigation: whether state-law tort claims seeking to impose liability on fossil fuel producers for alleged contributions to climate change are preempted by federal law.
Continue Reading Grant AlertWhen Property Rules Shape Gun Rights: The Supreme Court Considers Wolford v. Lopez
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. LopezGrant 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 Alert