Uncategorized

Subscribe to Uncategorized via RSS

On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on three related emergency applications—Trump v. CASA, Inc.(No. 24A884); Trump v. Washington (No. 24A885); and Trump v. New Jersey (No. 24A886)—arising from President Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order restricting birthright citizenship. As Dykema previously reported, the case raises a critical legal question: whether a federal district court may issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions and, if so, under what legal framework such relief is justified.Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Argument on Nationwide Scope of Injunction

The Supreme Court is currently considering a procedural question that could significantly affect how appeals are handled when litigants miss filing deadlines due to delayed notice of judgment. In Parrish v. United States (No. 24-275), the Justices will decide whether a litigant who timely files a notice of appeal after the ordinary deadline—but before a district court formally reopens the appeal period—must later file a second, duplicative notice once the period is officially reopened.Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Procedure for Reopened Federal Appeals

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

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 24-7), a case examining whether economic harm stemming from market forces influenced by environmental regulation can support Article III standing. At issue is California’s authority to enforce its own emission standards, through a waiver granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Standing to Challenge Clean Air Act Waiver Based on Market Impact

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

In Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, the Supreme Court is weighing whether legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) denial of Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) exemptions for small oil refineries must be filed exclusively in the D.C. Circuit under the Clean Air Act (CAA).Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Venue and Nationwide Applicability of EPA Actions in Renewable Fuel Case

In a case with potentially sweeping implications for administrative and constitutional law, the Supreme Court is weighing whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) administration of universal telecommunications services violates the nondelegation doctrine—a principle that limits Congress’s ability to transfer legislative authority to agencies or private entities.Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Nondelegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Program

The Supreme Court is set to resolve a critical issue in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services—whether majority-group plaintiffs must meet a higher evidentiary burden to prove reverse discrimination under Title VII. The case challenges the long-standing requirement that plaintiffs from majority groups must establish “background circumstances” suggesting discrimination, a standard not applied to minority-group plaintiffs.Continue Reading Supreme Court To Rule on Additional Burden for Reverse Discrimination Claims

Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas raises significant questions about the scope of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision-making and who can contest those decisions. The issues before the Court are whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may license private companies to store depleted nuclear fuel and whether a nonparty can challenge the agency’s final orders.Continue Reading Supreme Court Tackles Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Powers and Nonparty Challenges to Final Orders

Earlier this month, in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, the Supreme Court considered whether a court must balance the finality principles of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) with the liberal amendment policies of Rule 15(a) when plaintiffs seek to reopen a final judgment to file an amended complaint.Continue Reading The Supreme Court Weighs Rule 60(B) Finality Against Rule 15(A)