SCOTUS

Subscribe to SCOTUS via RSS

On December 8, 2025, the Justices heard oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter (No. 25-332). The Supreme Court plans to decide (1) whether the statutory removal protections for independent, multi-member federal agencies violate the separation of powers (and, if so, whether the Supreme Court should sack its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States) and (2) whether the judiciary has the power to prevent one’s removal from public office.Continue Reading Supreme Court To Determine Whether the President Can Remove Members of Multi-Member Federal Agencies

Trump v. Barbara / Trump v. Washington

The Supreme Court granted review of President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, addressing the application of birthright citizenship. The grant follows—and has drawn heightened attention because of—the Court’s earlier decision staying a lower court’s nationwide injunction of the Executive Order. Although courts have long interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment…

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

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

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s Universal Service Program (USP) does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion in FCC v. Consumers’ Research and Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers’ Research, with Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson filing separate concurrences. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Nondelegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Program