SCOTUS

Subscribe to SCOTUS via RSS

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the State of Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd., a private Texas-based company involved in oil and gas extraction and production, lack standing to challenge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decision to license a private nuclear waste storage facility in West Texas. Writing for the majority in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, Justice Kavanaugh concluded that neither Texas nor Fasken qualified as “aggrieved parties” under the Hobbs Act. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules Texas Lacks Standing to Challenge Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Decision

On June 5, 2025, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis as improvidently granted—despite having already granted certiorari and heard oral argument in the case on April 29, 2025. The Court did not explain its reasoning or disclose the vote breakdown. However, Justice Kavanaugh’s lone, solo dissent sheds light on the possible rationale behind the dismissal and defends the importance of the question presented.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Dismisses Labcorp v. Davis as Improvidently Granted

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

On April 29, in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court held in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy (No. 23-715) that the “Medicare fraction” of the Medicare program includes only those patients who were eligible to receive supplementary social income (SSI) payments during the month of their hospitalization, as opposed to patients who were merely enrolled in the SSI system at the time of their hospitalization.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Medicare DSH Reimbursement—Key Implications for Hospitals in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy

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

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

In a significant and unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court held that reimbursement requests submitted to the E-Rate program qualify as “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA) if any portion of the funds involved originates from the U.S. Treasury. The decision in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath is poised to have far-reaching implications for entities that receive federal funds through intermediaries, heightening litigation and raising the stakes for FCA compliance.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Broadens False Claims Act Reach To E-Rate Reimbursement Requests

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