Decision Alert

Subscribe to Decision Alert via RSS

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 Court

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 Ban

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 Judgment

In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court in Villarreal v. Texas (No. 24-557) affirmed the Texas Court of  Criminal Appeals’ holding that an order prohibiting a criminal defendant and his attorney from discussing the defendant’s testimony during a mid-testimony, overnight recess does not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds That Courts Can Prohibit Consultation About Ongoing Testimony During Overnight Recess

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 Ban

As summarized in Dykema’s December 2025 edition, the Supreme Court heard oral argument this fall in two consolidated cases (Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. VOS Selections) that presented the question of whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose tariffs. In a 6-3 decision out last month, the Supreme Court held that it does not.

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds President Not Authorized To Impose Tariffs Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act

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 Policy

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

A divided Ninth Circuit panel declined to push the pause button on a San Francisco-based district court’s nationwide injunction blocking the government from carrying out President Trump’s executive order aimed to reign in the size of the federal government through large-scale reductions in its workforce, with special focus on those federal agency “offices that perform functions not mandated by statute or other law.” A coalition of unions, nonprofits, and local governments brought the lawsuit to challenge the president’s authority to reorganize the agencies, absent congressional approval. Undeterred, the government promptly applied to the Supreme Court to freeze the injunction while its appeal before the Ninth Circuit moves forward. In arguing for the emergency relief, Solicitor General D. John Sauer called the district court’s order “flawed” and resting on an “indefensible premise” that the president needs authorization from Congress to oversee personnel decisions within the Executive Branch. In an unsigned, one-page order issued July 8, the Supreme Court seemingly had no difficulty staying the injunction, reasoning that “the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order… [is] lawful.”

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clears the Way for Executive Control

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal district courts lack authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal (or nationwide) injunctions. Justice Barrett wrote the Court’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh filed separate concurrences. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Justice Jackson also authored a separate dissent.

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules District Courts Lack Power to Issue Universal Injunctions