Supreme Court Announcements/Decisions
Good morning! As we look closer to the ending of the argument season, yes it is actually coming upon us, we dive into some of the last remaining cases that the Court will hear. The March calendar sitting released on Jan 30 gives us a glimpse into the spring…
This morning the Supreme Court released its final argument session of the year, for the month of April, same as yesterday, use the tickets to enter into a chance to reserve a spot for your desired case.
April sitting: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalApril2026.pdf
April sitting: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalApril2026.pdf
👍13💅1
JUST IN - Buckle up, Supreme Court has announced Friday February 20, Tuesday February 24, and Wednesday February 25 as opinion days. We will be here for all three days.
1❤86🔥38👍19🙏19👏16👌3🤩1
HAPPY FRIDAY EVERYONE!!!
It’s almost time for the weekend, but we are making a quit pit stop to the Supreme Court for opinions before then.
The justices plan to announce at least one or more opinions this morning at 10amET. They also scheduled an opinion day for next Tuesday and Wednesday. This means regardless, we will have at least three opinions in total. Not typical for them to schedule three in advance especially this early, but we won’t complain, considering the alternative is a shadow docket opinion at a random hour.
We will be here right at 10am sending the first opinion when we receive it. Until then, drink some coffee and enjoy the quiet morning.
It’s almost time for the weekend, but we are making a quit pit stop to the Supreme Court for opinions before then.
The justices plan to announce at least one or more opinions this morning at 10amET. They also scheduled an opinion day for next Tuesday and Wednesday. This means regardless, we will have at least three opinions in total. Not typical for them to schedule three in advance especially this early, but we won’t complain, considering the alternative is a shadow docket opinion at a random hour.
We will be here right at 10am sending the first opinion when we receive it. Until then, drink some coffee and enjoy the quiet morning.
👍38👀23❤9🔥9🆒3👎1
Case: Learning Resources, Inc. v Trump.
Author of Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts
Joined by: Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson. Multiple concurrences.
Dissented: Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas and Alito joined.
Holding: IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf
Author of Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts
Joined by: Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett and Jackson. Multiple concurrences.
Dissented: Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas and Alito joined.
Holding: IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf
👎67🤬23🤡7🙏3❤2😁2
That’s all for today folks, for those who were interested in the tariffs case, it’s here!!
👎47👏10🤡3🥰1🏆1
Good Monday Morning Everyone!
It’s the first day of the February sitting, and the justices start their day with an order list at 9:30amET.
Following that, the justices will sit for two cases scheduled for oral argument.
1). Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises.
2). Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A.
Both cases involve the Cuban government and the LIBERTAD Act.
Arguments for the first case begins at 10amET, here’s a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
It’s the first day of the February sitting, and the justices start their day with an order list at 9:30amET.
Following that, the justices will sit for two cases scheduled for oral argument.
1). Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises.
2). Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A.
Both cases involve the Cuban government and the LIBERTAD Act.
Arguments for the first case begins at 10amET, here’s a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍32❤4
Good Morning Everyone!
It’s annoying opinion day, so you know what that means, we will be here at 10amET to send them when they are released on the website.
After that, the justices will hear a procedural case for oral argument:
1). Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel
Arguments begin after opinion announcements, here’s a link to listen live to the arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
It’s annoying opinion day, so you know what that means, we will be here at 10amET to send them when they are released on the website.
After that, the justices will hear a procedural case for oral argument:
1). Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel
Arguments begin after opinion announcements, here’s a link to listen live to the arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍35❤3
Case: Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist
Author of Opinion: Justice Sotomayor
Joined by: Unanimous Vote.
Dissented:
Holding: Because the District Court’s erroneous dismissal of Whole Foods did not cure the jurisdictional defect that existed when this case was removed to federal court, the Fifth Circuit correctly vacated the judgment in Hain’s favor.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-724_igdj.pdf
Author of Opinion: Justice Sotomayor
Joined by: Unanimous Vote.
Dissented:
Holding: Because the District Court’s erroneous dismissal of Whole Foods did not cure the jurisdictional defect that existed when this case was removed to federal court, the Fifth Circuit correctly vacated the judgment in Hain’s favor.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-724_igdj.pdf
❤19🤔5
Case: Postal Service v. Konan
Author of Opinion: Justice Thomas
Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Dissented: Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson.
Holding: The United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail because both “miscarriage” and “loss” of mail under the FTCA’s postal exception can occur as a result of the Postal Service’s intentional failure to deliver the mail.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-351_7648.pdf
Author of Opinion: Justice Thomas
Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Dissented: Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson.
Holding: The United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail because both “miscarriage” and “loss” of mail under the FTCA’s postal exception can occur as a result of the Postal Service’s intentional failure to deliver the mail.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-351_7648.pdf
❤22🤔7🔥4
Happy Wednesday Everyone!
It’s another opinion day at the Supreme Court, last one of the month. The justices will convene at 10amET to deliver one or more opinions in argued cases.
After that, the justices will hear a case for oral arguments:
1). Pung v. Isabella County - A case involving the government confiscation of private party and the Taking Clause of the fifth amendment.
Arguments begin following opinion announcements, here’s a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
It’s another opinion day at the Supreme Court, last one of the month. The justices will convene at 10amET to deliver one or more opinions in argued cases.
After that, the justices will hear a case for oral arguments:
1). Pung v. Isabella County - A case involving the government confiscation of private party and the Taking Clause of the fifth amendment.
Arguments begin following opinion announcements, here’s a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍23❤3
Case: Villarreal v. Texas
Author of Opinion: Justice Jackson
Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.
Dissented:
Holding: A qualified conferral order that prohibits only discussion of the defendant’s testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess permissibly balances the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the burden of offering unaltered trial testimony and does not violate the Constitution.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-557_l5gm.pdf
Author of Opinion: Justice Jackson
Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.
Dissented:
Holding: A qualified conferral order that prohibits only discussion of the defendant’s testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess permissibly balances the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the burden of offering unaltered trial testimony and does not violate the Constitution.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-557_l5gm.pdf
👍14❤2🙏1
Case: Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal
Author of Opinion: Justice Kagan
Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson. Justice Thomas and Alito filed opinions concurring in the judgment.
Dissented:
Holding: Because Yearsley provides federal contractors a potential merits defense rather than an immunity from suit, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection is not immediately appealable.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-758_2dp3.pdf
Author of Opinion: Justice Kagan
Joined by: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson. Justice Thomas and Alito filed opinions concurring in the judgment.
Dissented:
Holding: Because Yearsley provides federal contractors a potential merits defense rather than an immunity from suit, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection is not immediately appealable.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-758_2dp3.pdf
❤15🙏1
NEW - Supreme Court to issue one or more opinions in argued cases on Wednesday March 4, at 10amET.
👍36❤10🤡6
Happy March Everyone!
It feels like the year started yesterday, but no, it’s already March.
We are on week two of the February sitting, today’s case is a big testament to the second amendment.
- United States v Hemani is a case being heard this morning by the justices about whether a federal law which prohibits people addicted to a controlled substance from possessing a firearm, violates the second amendment. The law in question was also used to prosecute Hunter Biden, the son of former President Biden.
Arguments begin at 10amET, here’s a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
It feels like the year started yesterday, but no, it’s already March.
We are on week two of the February sitting, today’s case is a big testament to the second amendment.
- United States v Hemani is a case being heard this morning by the justices about whether a federal law which prohibits people addicted to a controlled substance from possessing a firearm, violates the second amendment. The law in question was also used to prosecute Hunter Biden, the son of former President Biden.
Arguments begin at 10amET, here’s a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
❤24🙏14👍4
BREAKING: Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, grants a stay in the NY redistricting case, allowing the current map to remain in place for the November midterms. Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent, in which Justice Kagan and Jackson joined.
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a914_1p24.pdf
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a914_1p24.pdf
❤39👍17👏6🤩1
Good Tuesday morning everyone!
Start the coffee, it’s a technical day at the Supreme Court, if you’re someone who is a stickler for appellate procedures and *waivers*, this will be your day to enjoy.
- Hunter v United States is a case involving a criminal defendant challenging the limitations to the exceptions on appeal waivers, arguing that the fifth circuit erred by suggesting there were only two exceptions to the appeal waivers, which resulted in the dismissal of his appeal in said circuit.
If this case interests you, here’s a link to listen to the oral arguments when they begin: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
Start the coffee, it’s a technical day at the Supreme Court, if you’re someone who is a stickler for appellate procedures and *waivers*, this will be your day to enjoy.
- Hunter v United States is a case involving a criminal defendant challenging the limitations to the exceptions on appeal waivers, arguing that the fifth circuit erred by suggesting there were only two exceptions to the appeal waivers, which resulted in the dismissal of his appeal in said circuit.
If this case interests you, here’s a link to listen to the oral arguments when they begin: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍31❤7
It’s a Wednesday morning, which means it’s the last day of argument sitting for the February session.
First the justices will convene at 10amET to deliver one or more opinions in argued cases this term, some cases still pending from October. We will be here for it all.
Following that, the justices will hear Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC., a case about common-law claims.
Oral arguments will begin following opinion announcements, here’s a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
First the justices will convene at 10amET to deliver one or more opinions in argued cases this term, some cases still pending from October. We will be here for it all.
Following that, the justices will hear Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC., a case about common-law claims.
Oral arguments will begin following opinion announcements, here’s a link to listen live: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
👍25❤7
Case: Urias-Orellana v. Bondi.
Author of Opinion: Justice Jackson
Joined by: Unanimous Court.
Dissented:
Holding: The INA requires application of the substantial-evidence standard to the agency’s determination whether a given set of undisputed facts rises to the level of persecution under §1101(a)(42)(A).
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-777_9ol1.pdf
Author of Opinion: Justice Jackson
Joined by: Unanimous Court.
Dissented:
Holding: The INA requires application of the substantial-evidence standard to the agency’s determination whether a given set of undisputed facts rises to the level of persecution under §1101(a)(42)(A).
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-777_9ol1.pdf
❤21👍10
Case: Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation
Author of Opinion: Justice Sotomayor
Joined by: Unanimous Court.
Dissented:
Holding: NJ Transit Corporation is not an arm of New Jersey and thus is not entitled to share in New Jersey’s interstate sovereign immunity.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1021_p860.pdf
Author of Opinion: Justice Sotomayor
Joined by: Unanimous Court.
Dissented:
Holding: NJ Transit Corporation is not an arm of New Jersey and thus is not entitled to share in New Jersey’s interstate sovereign immunity.
Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1021_p860.pdf
1❤25👍11