The Supreme Court

The Court addressed whether the U.S. Constitution requires Missouri to use a new redistricting map that has not been approved by voters as required by state law. The Court held that lower federal courts should not alter state election rules on the eve of or during an election, thereby staying injunctions that would have mandated the use of the unapproved 2025 map.

The Court granted a stay, finding that while the plaintiff organizations likely had standing to challenge the modified SAVE program, their claims that the program violated the Social Security Act, Privacy Act, and Administrative Procedure Act likely lacked merit because Congress had expressly authorized DHS to request and receive citizenship information.

The case concerns whether the Fourth Circuit had statutory jurisdiction to review an FCC public notice while an application for review was still pending before the Commission. The Court held that the Fourth Circuit likely lacked jurisdiction, granting a stay because the Communications Act requires the Commission to resolve an application for review by order before judicial review can be sought.

The Court granted a stay of a preliminary injunction that had halted construction on the White House East Wing, finding that the National Trust for Historic Preservation was unlikely to have standing because its member's aesthetic disagreement with the construction did not constitute a concrete and particularized injury under Article III.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of a District Court's injunction against an Executive Order on election integrity, finding that the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the plaintiff States lacked standing and ripeness to bring the suit.

The Court addressed whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present. The Court held that such children are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

The Court addressed whether the Federal Election Campaign Act's limits on political party spending coordinated with candidates violate the First Amendment. The Court held that these limits are unconstitutional, finding they are not proportionate, necessary, or narrowly tailored to prevent corruption, especially given other available tools like earmarking and disclosure laws.

The Court addressed whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause permit schools to maintain women's and girls' sports teams exclusively for biological females. The Court held that Title IX allows schools to provide separate sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.

The Supreme Court held that police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained an individual's cell-phone location data from Google via a geofence warrant, because individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell-phone location information. The Court reasoned that this type of data provides a detailed and encyclopedic portrait of a person's movements, similar to or even more precise than the cell-site location information previously addressed in Carpenter v. United States.

The Court addressed whether a district court's preliminary injunction preventing the President from removing a Federal Reserve Board member should remain in effect. The Court denied the government's application, holding that the President's "for cause" removal power is not unreviewable and that the government was unlikely to prevail on its legal arguments.

The case concerns the President's authority to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners. The Court held that the FTC's for-cause removal provision is unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers by limiting the President's ability to remove executive officers at will.

The Supreme Court addressed whether federal election-day statutes prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later. The Court held that federal law does not preempt Mississippi's statute, as nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.

The Court addressed whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims against pesticide manufacturers. The Court held that FIFRA expressly preempts such claims if they would require a manufacturer to add a warning to a label that EPA has not required, as federal law mandates the use of EPA-approved labels.

The Supreme Court addressed when an alien "arrives in the United States" for asylum and inspection purposes under the INA. The Court held that an alien arrives only when they cross the border, not when they are standing in Mexico attempting to enter, thus not entitling them to asylum application or inspection while still in Mexico.

The Supreme Court addressed whether individuals challenging the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syria and Haiti are entitled to orders postponing these terminations during litigation. The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims and that the equal protection claim regarding Haiti's TPS termination was unlikely to succeed.

The Court addressed whether a Hawaii law prohibiting firearms on private property open to the public without express consent violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that the law is unconstitutional because it imposes a significant burden on the right to carry handguns for self-defense, and Hawaii's historical analogues did not support its constitutionality.

The case questions whether individuals can be held personally liable under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a Spending Clause statute, without their voluntary and knowing consent to such liability. The Court held that individuals cannot be held liable in their personal capacities under a Spending Clause statute unless they have voluntarily and knowingly consented to answer lawsuits under that statute, and since the individual officers did not consent, the case against them cannot proceed.

The Court addressed whether the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming them an applicant for admission. The Court held that the INA does not impose such a burden on border officers, clarifying that the commission of the crime is sufficient at the initial stage, with conviction or admission required later to establish inadmissibility.

The Court addressed whether new causes of action for violations of international norms can be created under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and whether aiding and abetting liability applies under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). The Court held that courts may not create new causes of action under the ATS, emphasizing that the power to create causes of action belongs to Congress and that judicially created causes of action generally offend the separation of powers.