Summary

Subscribe to Summary via RSS

The Supreme Court will utilize the case of Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties (No. 25-83) to clarify an important jurisdictional question in the enforcement of domestic arbitration awards: whether a federal court, which initially exercises jurisdiction over a claim that was sent to arbitration, is able to later confirm or overturn an arbitration award when there is no other basis for federal-court jurisdiction.

Continue Reading Supreme Court to Elucidate Federal Court Jurisdiction in Enforcing Arbitration Awards

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. Barbara

On March 25, the Supreme Court heard argument in Flowers Foods, Inc v. Brock, a case presenting a key issue regarding interstate commerce: whether “last-mile” delivery drivers are classified as transportation workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Set To Clarify Whether “Last-Mile” Delivery Drivers Are Engaged in Interstate Commerce

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?

In Pung v. Isabella County (No. 25-95), the Supreme Court is considering whether the Takings Clause requires governments to compensate property owners based on the fair market value of their property following a tax foreclosure, rather than limiting compensation to the proceeds generated by the foreclosure sale. The case also asks whether the government’s retention of the difference between the property’s alleged fair market value and the amount realized at auction may implicate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The dispute arises from a foreclosure in which the property was sold for less than its asserted market value, raising questions about whether constitutionally “just compensation” turns on market value or the results of the auction-priced foreclosure process itself.

Continue Reading Supreme Court to Determine the Limits of State Powers in Tax Foreclosures

On March 4, the Supreme Court heard argument in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport, II, a case that presents an important question at the intersection of federal preemption and state tort law: whether common-law negligent selection claims against freight brokers are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The dispute centers on whether such claims impermissibly regulate a broker’s core services—particularly the selection of motor carriers—or instead fall within the statute’s safety savings clause preserving state authority over motor vehicle safety.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Whether Negligent Selection Claims Are Preempted By the FAAAA

In Trump v. Cook, the Supreme Court is considering whether to stay a district court order that prevents the President from removing Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook. Although the case reaches the Court at the preliminary-injunction stage, it raises a significant structural question: how far presidential removal power extends over officials serving in congressionally-designed independent institutions such as the Federal Reserve.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers the Limits of Presidential Removal Power Over the Federal Reserve

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

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 Protection

In Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., the Supreme Court will determine whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a district court to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding,” can be invoked when a party voluntarily dismisses its case.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Examines Scope of Rule 60(b) Ability To Reopen Cases