The Supreme Court granted the Government's applications for partial stays of three universal injunctions that had blocked enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160 on birthright citizenship. The Court held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789, and limited the injunctions to provide relief only to the named plaintiffs. The Court did not address the constitutionality of the Executive Order itself.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The Supreme Court held that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers whose appointment by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is consistent with the Appointments Clause. The Court found that Task Force members are subject to the Secretary's supervision and direction through the Secretary's authority to remove them at will and to review and block their recommendations before they take effect. The Court also determined that Congress properly vested appointment authority in the Secretary through two statutes: the 1999 law giving the AHRQ Director power to "convene" the Task Force (which includes appointment power) and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966 (ratified by Congress in 1984), which transfers the Director's functions to the Secretary.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The Supreme Court dug into a tricky question about who gets to set fees on phone and internet companies to pay for universal service programs. At issue was whether Congress handed too much lawmaking power to the Federal Communications Commission, and then whether the FCC handed too much of its power to a private group that crunches the numbers. Justice Kagan, writing for the Court’s majority, said Congress gave clear instructions on how to calculate those fees and that the FCC still calls the final shots.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The Supreme Court held that parents challenging the Montgomery County Board of Education's introduction of "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks in elementary schools, along with the Board's decision to withhold opt-outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. The Court found that the Board's policies substantially interfere with parents' right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, creating an unconstitutional burden on their free exercise of religion that cannot survive strict scrutiny.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
This case turned on a key detail in the law: it only places a small hurdle on adults, while giving the state room to protect kids from seeing explicit material online.
Texas passed a law that says certain websites with sexually explicit content need to check IDs or use data from a purchase to confirm you’re at least 18. The Supreme Court’s majority said that requirement touches adults’ speech only lightly. Under a middle‐of‐the‐road level of review, the law meets the test because it serves Texas’s important goal of keeping children from exposure to harmful material.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The Supreme Court took up a subtle question about who gets the benefit of newer, lighter penalties under a law called the First Step Act. The question wasn’t a big headline grabber—it was about whether a prison term counts as “imposed” if a judge later wiped it away. By limiting retroactivity to those without valid sentences on the Act’s effective date, Congress balanced the general presumption against retroactivity, the interest in finality of judgments, and the bipartisan goal of ending disproportionate “stacking” of firearm sentences that had resulted in extreme prison terms.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The Court held that the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court determined that the provision lacks the required clear rights-creating language necessary for individuals to bring private enforcement actions against state officials. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
Ruben Gutierrez wanted to test DNA evidence in his case after his conviction, but Texas law put up a high wall. The state said you have to prove you’re innocent before you can even ask for new DNA testing. That rule wasn’t about whether the test would show who did it, but about who gets to make the request in the first place. This approach reflects Texas’s legislative choice to reserve DNA testing primarily for challenges to wrongful convictions, rather than to reduce capital sentences for those who participated in the crime but may not have been the actual killer.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Fourth Circuit's dismissal of Riley's petition for review. The Court held that (1) a BIA order denying deferral of removal in "withholding-only" proceedings is not a "final order of removal" under 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1), and (2) the 30-day filing deadline under §1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
In a close look at how the Clean Air Act treats pollution from burning plants and trees, the court decided whether the government can treat those emissions differently from the smokestacks of a coal plant. The current legal debate centers on whether invalidating California's waiver would actually change automakers' manufacturing decisions enough to help fuel producers—a question that isn't clearly addressed in the Clean Air Act itself but has significant implications for who can challenge these environmental regulations in court.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
In this case, the city had a rule that street performers needed a permit. But it turned out that some acts got fast-tracked permits while others were put on a waiting list. The Supreme Court said that kind of unequal treatment raises a red flag under the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The Supreme Court held that a federal court may authorize substitute service of process by mail and email on the PLO’s U.S. representative under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act when ordinary methods fail.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The heart of this decision turns on a fine line in federal drug rules—does simply handing out samples count as selling drugs to a non-patient? A group of chiropractors, who received free medicine samples to give directly to their patients, said “no.” The FDA’s rule says drug distributors must register and meet certain safety steps if they sell to anyone other than the patient. But these clinics never bought or sold the drugs at all. They only received samples from drug companies.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The Supreme Court held that retailers who would sell a new tobacco product if not for the FDA's denial order may seek judicial review of that order under 21 U.S.C. §387l(a)(1). The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's denial of the FDA's motion to dismiss or transfer the case for lack of venue, finding that retailers are "adversely affected" by a denial order and are therefore proper petitioners under the statute.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The law often draws fine lines that can mean the difference between freedom and prison, and the Supreme Court just drew one of those lines in a case called Esteras versus United States. The ruling doesn't create technical traps for judges but ensures they apply the law as Congress intended, with appropriate review by appellate courts when mistakes occur.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
Here’s the twist in the law: if you never joined the conversation when a federal agency made its decision, you can’t show up later in court to complain. In this case, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a plan to store spent nuclear fuel in West Texas. The state of Texas and a landowner group weren’t in the room when that license was granted, so the Supreme Court said they have no right to challenge it now. By reversing the lower court, the Justices kept the license in place but left a big question open—did the agency even have the power to issue that permit in the first place?
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions from Clean Air Act renewable fuel requirements are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the "nationwide scope or effect" exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit rather than regional circuits. The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
At the heart of this case is a fine point of law: whether the EPA’s decisions to reject Oklahoma’s and Utah’s air-quality plans should be treated as separate, local actions or lumped together into one big, national rule. The Supreme Court said these are individual, state-by-state decisions, based on detailed, local facts—and so they belong in the regional courts, not in Washington’s D.C. Circuit. In this case, the Court determined that the EPA's disapprovals of state plans remained separate state-specific actions, despite being published together, and therefore challenges should be heard in the regional circuit courts.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law (SB1) prohibiting healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to minors for the purpose of treating gender dysphoria or enabling a minor to identify with a gender inconsistent with their biological sex. The Court held that the law does not classify on the basis of sex or transgender status, is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, and satisfies rational basis review because it is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting minors' health and welfare.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
The Supreme Court held that parties are entitled to a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The Court construed the PLRA to require a jury trial in such cases, finding that the statute's silence on the matter indicates Congress intended to follow the usual practice of sending factual disputes intertwined with the merits to a jury.
music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras
