Uncategorized

Subscribe to Uncategorized via RSS

On November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Learning Resources v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. VOS Selections (consolidated as No. 24-1287) to consider whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the President to impose trade tariffs pursuant to declared national emergencies. If the Court concludes that the tariffs are statutorily authorized, the Justices will then decide whether the tariffs constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the President. So far, this is the most important case the Justices have agreed to hear this term.Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Extent of President’s Authority to Impose Tariffs During Proclaimed National Emergencies

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”

On November 4, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton (24-808) to consider whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes a time limit on motions seeking to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.Continue Reading Supreme Court Debates Applicability of Federal Rule to Void Default Judgments

On October 6, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Villarreal v. Texas (No. 24-557) to consider a constitutional question that could significantly affect criminal defendants’ Sixth Amendment protections. The Justices are poised to decide whether a trial court violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant from discussing his or her own testimony with counsel during an overnight trial recess before being dismissed as a witness.Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Prohibition on Criminal Defense Attorney-Client Communication

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

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