9robes

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 e...

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 o...

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 ...

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‐...

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 i...

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 f...

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 wrongf...

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 prov...

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...

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...

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 statut...

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 ...

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 ...

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, an...

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 ...