Episodes
-
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court has been active with several significant developments. On May 15, 2025, the Court issued a decision in the case of _Barnes v. Felix_ (23-1239), although the specifics of the ruling are not yet detailed in public reports.
In addition to this decision, the Court is preparing to hear arguments in a highly anticipated case, _Trump v. CASA_, along with its consolidated cases. This hearing is scheduled to take place, marking a significant event in the current term.
Over the last few days, the Court has also been involved in other notable activities. On April 30 and 29, 2025, decisions were released in _Feliciano v. Department Of Transportation_ (23-861) and another case involving Advocate Christ Medical Center, respectively. These decisions reflect the ongoing judicial activities of the Court.
The Supreme Court's emergency docket, often referred to as the shadow docket, has also seen recent activity, although the most recent emergency applications were denied in December 2024. These applications included stays related to executions, environmental regulations, and habeas petitions, among others.
As the Court continues through its current term, it is clear that several critical cases and decisions are on the horizon, shaping the legal landscape of the United States.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. I'm Jason, your go-to source for the latest updates from the US Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is currently in the midst of its 2024-2025 term, and several significant developments have emerged recently. One of the major headlines involves a contentious case related to birthright citizenship. The Trump administration's bid to end birthright citizenship, a principle that grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, is heading to the Supreme Court. This case is garnering considerable attention due to its potential to reshape immigration policy and constitutional interpretations.
Another critical issue is the government's request to allow the Department of Homeland Security to revoke parole for approximately half a million noncitizens. This move has sparked intense debate and is part of a broader discussion on immigration policies.
On the emergency docket, the court has been handling several urgent applications. While there haven't been any new emergency decisions in the last few days, recent denials include cases such as *Republican National Committee v. Genser*, where the court denied a stay on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision regarding provisional ballots, and *Moore v. Stirling*, where the court denied a stay of execution for Richard Bernard Moore.
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court is set to issue one or more opinions from the current term on Thursday, May 15. Following the opinion releases, the justices will hear oral arguments in the case of *Trump v. CASA*, which promises to be another highly watched event.
In summary, the Supreme Court is navigating a series of high-stakes cases and decisions that could have far-reaching implications on immigration, citizenship, and other critical issues.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
Episodes manquant?
-
In recent developments, the US Supreme Court has been in the spotlight for several significant events and decisions. One of the most notable pieces of news is the passing of Retired Associate Justice David Souter, who died at the age of 85 at his home in New Hampshire. Justice Souter, known for his alignment with the court's liberal wing despite being appointed by a Republican president, left a lasting impact on the judiciary.
On the judicial front, the Supreme Court has been handling various cases and emergency applications. For instance, the court has made decisions on several emergency docket cases, including denying an application for a stay in the case of Richard Bernard Moore, who was on South Carolina's death row. The court also denied an emergency application for an injunction in the case of West v. Pennsylvania Department of State, which involved directives for polling locations to inform voters about write-in candidates.
Additionally, there has been ongoing discussion and analysis of upcoming and current cases, such as the birthright citizenship case, which some argue is not strictly about birthright citizenship but has broader implications. Another topic of interest is the Supreme Court's ruling on charter schools, with some commentators suggesting a focus on the mission rather than the religious aspect to navigate the complexities of the ruling.
The Supreme Court Building remains open to the public, offering courtroom lectures and other educational programs, highlighting the court's commitment to public engagement and education.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS news Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. I'm Jason, your reporter for all the latest developments from the US Supreme Court.
Recently, the Supreme Court has been involved in several significant cases and decisions. One of the notable rulings came on April 7, 2025, in the case of Trump v. J. G. G., where the Court addressed the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of a specific group. The Court's decision upheld the lower courts' orders, which had paused deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, requiring individualized hearings to determine if the Act applies to the individuals in question.
In another significant move, on April 4, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to halt millions of dollars in teacher training grants. This decision came after a federal judge in Massachusetts had ordered the Department of Education to reinstate over $65 million in grants that were terminated due to their inclusion of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The Court's majority opinion, though unsigned, reasoned that the government would likely be unable to recover the funds once disbursed and that withholding the funds during litigation would not cause permanent harm to the recipients. This decision was met with dissent from Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has been in the news for allowing the Trump administration to enforce a transgender troop ban while related cases proceed. This decision reflects the ongoing legal battles surrounding military policy and gender identity.
On the operational front, the Supreme Court Building remains open to the public from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., and Courtroom Lectures are available for those interested in learning more about the Court's proceedings.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis of the US Supreme Court's activities. -
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court has been active with several notable developments. Recently, the Court issued decisions in a few significant cases. On April 30, 2025, the Court ruled in the case of Feliciano v. Department Of Transportation, involving an air traffic controller and Coast Guard reserve petty officer who was called to active duty. The decision addressed the implications of his military service on his civilian employment.
Another recent decision was in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy on April 29, 2025, where the Court considered a dispute over the calculation of Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) adjustments by the Department of Health and Human Services. This case is crucial for hospitals that treat a high number of low-income patients.
In addition to these decisions, the Supreme Court has also been preparing for its upcoming term. On April 7, 2025, the Court added two new cases to its docket for the 2025-26 term, focusing on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the issue of restitution orders in relation to the Constitution's ex post facto clause. One of these cases involves Holsey Ellingburg, who was sentenced to nearly 27 years in prison and ordered to pay restitution, raising questions about whether such restitution orders can violate the ex post facto clause.
The Court has also been considering other significant issues, including requests for emergency relief in cases related to President Donald Trump's efforts, such as ending birthright citizenship and the use of the Alien Enemies Act, though no decisions have been made on these matters yet.
On the operational side, the Supreme Court Building remains open to the public from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., and Courtroom Lectures are available for visitors.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Here’s the latest from the US Supreme Court.
Over the last few days, the Supreme Court has issued several significant decisions. On April 30, 2025, the Court ruled in the case of Feliciano v. Department Of Transportation. This case involved Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller and Coast Guard reserve petty officer, who was called to active duty in 2012. The Court's decision addressed the implications of his military service on his employment rights.
Another notable decision came on April 29, 2025, in the case of Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy. Here, the Court sided with the federal government in a dispute over the formula used to calculate Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) adjustments. These adjustments provide additional funding to hospitals that treat a high number of low-income patients. The hospitals had argued that the Department of Health and Human Services miscalculated these adjustments, but the Court upheld the government's methodology.
Earlier, on April 22, 2025, the Court decided Velazquez v. Bondi, a case involving Monsalvo Velázquez, a Mexican national who has lived in the U.S. for about 20 years. Velázquez had been in removal proceedings since 2011 and had requested either suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal. The details of this decision highlight the ongoing legal battles surrounding immigration policies.
In addition to these rulings, the Supreme Court continues its regular operations, with the Justices meeting in private conferences to discuss upcoming cases and other matters.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don’t forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis of Supreme Court news. -
In a significant and timely intervention, the US Supreme Court has blocked a move by the Trump administration to deport a group of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang. This decision came in a dramatic nighttime ruling on Saturday, April 19, just hours after a challenge was filed by attorneys representing the migrants. The court's action prevents the immediate deportation of these individuals, who were at risk of being sent back to potentially dangerous conditions without having the opportunity to go through the legal process.
This ruling is part of a broader and increasingly contentious battle between the Trump administration and the judiciary over immigration policies. The administration has faced numerous legal challenges to its deportation agenda, with several lower court judges issuing nationwide stops on these policies. President Trump has responded with criticism and personal attacks on some of these judges.
In another related development, the Supreme Court has also upheld an order requiring the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that the administration adheres to legal procedures and respects the rights of individuals.
The Supreme Court's recent actions highlight its role in checking executive power and upholding the rule of law, even as the administration pushes the boundaries of its authority. These decisions are seen as significant victories by Democrats and advocacy groups, who argue that the administration's deportation policies have been overly aggressive and disregard due process.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on Supreme Court news and decisions. -
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court is gearing up for significant activities. On Thursday, April 17, the court was expected to issue one or more opinions from the current term, which is a notable event as it often brings clarity to pending cases and sets legal precedents.
One of the cases that has been in the spotlight, though not necessarily decided in the last few days, is the _Mahmoud v. Taylor_ case. This case revolves around the issue of banning LGBTQ+ books and has garnered considerable attention due to its implications on free speech and censorship.
In other news, there has been ongoing discussion about the Supreme Court's role in broader political and social issues. For instance, there has been criticism regarding the court's perceived weakness, particularly in the context of political interference and the ability of the court to address significant national issues.
On the emergency docket front, several emergency applications have been denied recently. These include cases such as _Grayson v. Hamm_, where the court denied a stay of execution for Carey Dale Grayson to pursue his Eighth Amendment claims against Alabama’s execution method, and _Oklahoma v. Department of Health and Human Services_, where the court denied an injunction related to funding conditions for abortion referrals under Title X.
Looking ahead, the Supreme Court's calendar indicates that the next session of oral arguments is set to begin on April 21, 2025, marking the continuation of the October Term 2024.
For those following the Supreme Court closely, these developments highlight the ongoing and complex nature of the court's work, from deciding critical cases to addressing emergency applications.
Thanks for listening to the SCOTUS news Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant decision was handed down on April 7, 2025, in the case of _Trump v. J. G. G._ This case involves the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of the Tren de Aragua group. The Supreme Court granted an application to vacate the orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which had issued a temporary restraining order and its subsequent extension. The Court held that venue lies in the district of confinement and saw no benefit in delaying the resolution of this issue.
The decision was not without dissent, as Justice Sotomayor strongly disagreed with the majority's ruling. She argued that the Government had ignored its obligations to the rule of law, attempting to avoid judicial review by hastily deporting the detainees without proper notice or public proclamation. Justice Sotomayor criticized the Government's conduct, stating it posed an extraordinary threat to the rule of law and that the Court's decision to grant discretionary equitable relief to the Government was indefensible.
On a broader note, the Supreme Court continues to handle various emergency applications and cases, some of which have garnered significant attention. However, there have been no other major headline-grabbing decisions or events from the Court in the last few days beyond the _Trump v. J. G. G._ case.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, several significant decisions and ongoing legal battles have captured attention. One of the most contentious issues involves the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.
The Supreme Court recently lifted a temporary restraining order that had blocked the administration from deporting these individuals, allowing the deportations to proceed but with certain conditions. The court ruled that the deportations could continue, but it also mandated that current and future detainees must be given notice and the opportunity to file for habeas relief in their district of confinement before being sent overseas. This decision, while a victory for the administration in some respects, also underscored that the detainees have the right to challenge their detention and removal, a crucial due process requirement.
This case is part of a broader pattern where the Supreme Court has been cautious in its approach to Trump's executive actions, avoiding direct confrontation while asserting its power of judicial review. The court has been a stickler for civil procedure, often ruling on narrow technical grounds rather than addressing the substantive issues of Trump's actions.
Another significant area of focus is the upcoming challenges to several of Trump's executive orders and policies. The court is set to weigh in on Trump's attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, a move that contradicts long-standing legal precedent and the text of the 14th Amendment. Additionally, the court will examine Trump's efforts to remove the heads of independent agencies, challenges to his tariffs program, and the termination of transgender service members from the U.S. military.
These decisions highlight the delicate balance the Supreme Court is maintaining, particularly with its conservative majority. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett are often the swing votes, and their alignment is crucial for the more liberal justices to prevail in any given case.
The ongoing legal battles and the Supreme Court's approach to these issues are drawing comparisons to the post-9/11 era, particularly the detention policies at Guantanamo Bay. Critics argue that the current administration's actions could lead to a legal black hole, where individuals are detained without due process or rights, similar to the controversies surrounding Guantanamo.
As these cases continue to unfold, they promise to shape the landscape of executive power, judicial review, and individual rights in the United States.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant decision was handed down on April 7, 2025, in the case of Trump v. J. G. G. This case revolves around the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of the group Tren de Aragua.
The Supreme Court granted an application to vacate the orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, specifically vacating the temporary restraining order and its extension issued on March 15 and March 28, 2025. This decision effectively allows the government to proceed with deportations under a proclamation that had been temporarily halted by the lower court.
The case was marked by urgency and controversy, with the District Court scheduling an emergency hearing to consider extending temporary relief to a class of noncitizens subject to the anticipated proclamation. Despite the court's actions, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) continued to prepare for the immediate departure of detainees, leading to concerns about compliance with the court's orders.
Justice Sotomayor dissented, highlighting issues with the government's compliance and the potential evasion of judicial oversight. She noted that the government had taken the position that it had no legal obligation to obey the District Court's orders issued from the bench, a stance that Justice Sotomayor argued was misguided.
This decision is part of a broader context of legal battles over immigration policies and the authority of the executive branch, reflecting ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the administration.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on key Supreme Court decisions and events. -
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court has been involved in several significant and contentious issues. One of the most recent and notable developments involves the Trump administration's efforts to implement restrictions on birthright citizenship. The administration has filed emergency applications with the Supreme Court, seeking to allow parts of an executive order to take effect despite being blocked by lower courts. This order aims to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally, a move that has been challenged by numerous states and groups on constitutional grounds, particularly the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.
In another significant development, the Supreme Court has been dealing with various emergency applications related to upcoming elections. For instance, applications involving Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s candidacy for president have been denied. The court refused to grant injunctions that would have required states like Wisconsin and Michigan to remove Kennedy's name from the ballot.
On the judicial process front, the Supreme Court has made decisions on several emergency applications, including those related to executions and procedural matters. For example, the court denied a stay of execution for Carey Dale Grayson, who was challenging Alabama's use of nitrogen hypoxia for his execution. Similarly, an emergency application to stay the execution of Freddie Eugene Owens was also denied.
Additionally, the court has addressed issues related to public health and free speech. An application to protect the public viewpoint speech of Washington licensed physicians from state investigation and sanctioning was denied. This case involved physicians whose statements were characterized as "misinformation."
In terms of broader judicial policy, the Supreme Court continues to grapple with the issue of nationwide injunctions, a topic that has drawn criticism from some justices. The Trump administration's recent filings highlight concerns about the broad reach of orders issued by individual federal judges.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
The US Supreme Court has been at the center of several significant developments recently. One of the major headlines involves a case that could have far-reaching implications for healthcare access, particularly for low-income patients. The Court heard arguments on whether states can cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. This case, originating from South Carolina, revolves around the state's attempt to block Medicaid funding to the organization, a move that could affect patients relying on Planned Parenthood for services such as contraception, cancer screenings, and pregnancy testing.
During the hearings, the justices appeared divided, with some conservatives leaning towards the state's argument that such lawsuits by Medicaid patients are not allowed, which could save public money in legal fees. Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed a need for clarity on this issue, given the confusion in lower courts. However, justices like Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan raised concerns about the impact on low-income patients, questioning whether an administrative appeal process would be effective for them.
This case is part of a broader push by abortion opponents to defund Planned Parenthood, and its outcome could influence other states that have also moved to cut the organization out of their Medicaid programs.
In addition to this, the Supreme Court issued two significant decisions. In the case of FDA v. Wages, the Court vacated a Fifth Circuit decision that had ruled the FDA acted arbitrarily in denying electronic cigarette manufacturers' applications to market their products. The Supreme Court held that the FDA's decisions were consistent with its pre-decisional guidance, although it did acknowledge the FDA's failure to review the applicants' marketing plans as a potential issue.
Another decision came in the case of Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, where the Court ruled 5-4 that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) does not categorically bar recovery for business or property losses that derive from personal injuries. This ruling clarifies that plaintiffs can seek civil RICO damages for business or property losses, even if those losses resulted from personal injuries.
These decisions and the ongoing case regarding Planned Parenthood funding highlight the Supreme Court's active role in shaping key legal and policy issues in the United States.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
As of April 2, the US Supreme Court is set to release opinions in one or more argued cases from the current term. This announcement has generated significant interest, as it often does, given the potential impact of these decisions on various aspects of American law and society.
One of the major cases that has been in the spotlight involves a dispute over taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. The case, originating from South Carolina, centers on the state's decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program due to the organization's provision of abortion services. Despite federal law prohibiting government funding for abortions, South Carolina argues that providing Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood indirectly supports their abortion services. The plaintiffs, including Medicaid beneficiaries, contend that this exclusion violates the Medicaid Act's provision guaranteeing patients the free choice of healthcare providers. This case has significant implications for healthcare access, particularly for low-income and minority women who rely on Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services such as contraception and cancer screenings.
In another notable development, the Supreme Court is also addressing a matter related to the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law that has been invoked during wartime. Recently, lawyers for alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua urged the court to maintain a federal judge's order that prevents the federal government from removing individuals from the United States under this law without a hearing. The plaintiffs argue that many individuals were erroneously identified as gang members and face severe risks if deported to foreign prisons.
These cases highlight the Supreme Court's ongoing role in shaping critical legal and social issues in the United States, from healthcare access to immigration and national security.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant ruling was issued on March 26, 2025, where the Court upheld federal regulations on so-called "ghost gun" kits. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court supported the Biden Administration's regulation that restricts access to these self-assemble firearm kits, which produce untraceable weapons known as "ghost guns."
Additionally, the Court has been grappling with a high-stakes dispute over Louisiana's congressional districts. On March 25, 2025, the justices heard arguments on whether Louisiana legislators should be sent back to the drawing board to redraw the state’s congressional districts following the 2020 census. This case involves critical issues related to the role of race in redistricting.
In another notable development, former President Donald Trump has requested the Supreme Court to intervene in two separate matters. Trump has asked the Court to lift a judge's block on a case related to "alien" issues and also to block the reinstatement of 16,000 terminated federal probationary employees, following a judge's order to reinstate them.
On the administrative front, Chief Justice John Roberts recently rebuked Trump over comments calling for the impeachment of federal judges whose rulings conflicted with the Trump administration's policies, particularly on deportation plans.
The Supreme Court is also set to decide on several other significant cases, including disputes over the Clean Air Act and the storage of highly toxic nuclear waste at privately run U.S. facilities.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS news Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. I'm Jason, your reporter for all the latest developments from the US Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, March 26, the Supreme Court released several significant opinions. One of the key cases was _Bondi v. VanDerStok_, where the Court upheld the ATF's 2022 Rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ruling determined that the ATF's interpretation, which covers products that can be readily converted into operational firearms or functional frames or receivers, known as "ghost guns," is not facially inconsistent with the Act. The decision was supported by a majority of the justices, with Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson each filing concurring opinions, while Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.
Another notable case decided on the same day was _United States v. Miller_, although details on this specific case are not as widely available as those for _Bondi v. VanDerStok_.
Earlier in the week, on March 21, the Court issued an important decision in _Delligatti v. United States_. Here, the Court ruled that the knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the "use" of "physical force" against another person within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(A). This decision was unanimous among the participating justices, with Justice Gorsuch and Justice Jackson joining in a dissenting opinion.
Also on March 21, the Court decided _Thompson v. United States_, where it was held that Title 18 U.S.C. §1014, which prohibits "knowingly mak[ing] any false statement," does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false. This decision was unanimous, with Justices Alito and Jackson filing concurring opinions.
In addition to these decisions, the Supreme Court has several upcoming cases and hearings. For instance, the Court is set to hear oral arguments in disputes over which federal courts should handle lawsuits related to the Clean Air Act, specifically in the cases _Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC_ and _Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency_.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. For the latest updates and in-depth analysis, be sure to subscribe to our channel. -
As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court is in the midst of its March argument session, which began on March 24 and will continue until April 2. This session is packed with significant cases that address a range of critical issues.
On March 24, the Court heard arguments in two notable cases: *Louisiana v. Callais*, which involves a challenge to a lower court's decision to strike down a congressional voting map that created a second majority-Black district in Louisiana, and *Riley v. Bondi*, a dispute over the 30-day deadline to seek review of a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying withholding of deportation.
The following day, March 25, the justices delved into environmental law with *EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining* and *Oklahoma v. EPA*. These cases focus on whether challenges to the EPA's decisions under the Clean Air Act must be litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Today, March 26, the Court is set to hear *FCC v. Consumers’ Research*, a case that challenges a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. This case involves the validity of an FCC program aimed at improving internet and phone services in underserved areas, with the appeals court ruling that the program violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress’s power.
In addition to these arguments, the Court is also expected to issue one or more opinions from the current term today. This could bring significant developments in various legal areas, although the specific cases to be decided have not been announced.
The upcoming days will see the Court tackling more contentious issues, including a case on whether Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by denying a tax exemption to a religious organization, and another on the federal law governing second petitions for federal post-conviction relief.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
As of the latest updates, the U.S. Supreme Court has been involved in several significant developments, particularly surrounding the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and other pending cases.
Recently, the court's actions have paved the way for the reinstatement of the CTA's reporting obligations. On February 18, 2025, a court lifted the last remaining nationwide injunction that had prevented the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) from enforcing the CTA. This decision followed a January 23, 2025, order from the Supreme Court that allowed FinCEN to resume enforcement of the CTA's Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirements while an underlying case, *McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop*, continues to be litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
As a result, FinCEN has extended the CTA reporting deadlines for most companies until March 21, 2025. This new deadline applies to companies formed before, during, and in 2025, with some exceptions for entities that qualify for extensions due to disaster relief or other reasons. FinCEN has also indicated plans to modify certain CTA requirements to alleviate filing burdens on lower-risk entities.
In addition to the CTA developments, the Supreme Court is set to issue one or more opinions from the current term on March 21, 2025. This is part of the court's regular schedule of releasing decisions, and it will be closely watched by legal observers and the public.
On the appellate front, the Fifth Circuit is handling the appeals in both *McHenry* and *Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury*, with an expedited briefing schedule and oral arguments scheduled for March 25, 2025. These cases are crucial as they will determine the constitutionality and implementation details of the CTA.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on U.S. Supreme Court news. -
As we track the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, several significant cases and decisions have come to the forefront in the ongoing 2024-2025 term. The Court began hearing cases on October 7, 2024, and has already agreed to hear approximately 49 cases, with more expected to be added.
One of the key cases involves a Texas law requiring websites with content harmful to minors to verify the age of their users. In *Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton*, the Court will determine whether this law should be subject to strict scrutiny or rational basis review under the First Amendment.
Another critical area is firearms regulation. The Court is set to decide on the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to regulate ghost guns in *Garland v. VanDerStok*. This case delves into whether certain firearm parts kits and frames or receivers fall under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The Court is also addressing issues related to youth transgender care. In *United States v. Skrmetti*, it will consider the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that prohibits medical treatments for minors aimed at aligning their gender identity with their sex.
Environmental issues are also on the agenda, particularly in *City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency*, where the Court will examine the EPA's authority to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.
In addition, the Court has recently made a decision regarding the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. In *TikTok Inc. v. Garland* and *Firebaugh v. Garland*, the Court upheld a federal law that makes it unlawful for companies in the US to provide services to, distribute, maintain, or update TikTok unless its US operations are severed from Chinese control. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny, finding the law content-neutral and justified by the government's interest in preventing China from collecting sensitive data from US users.
These cases highlight the Court's ongoing engagement with a wide range of critical issues, from First Amendment rights and firearms regulation to environmental policy and national security concerns.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. -
In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant issue has emerged regarding the use of nationwide injunctions. President Donald Trump has filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, seeking to limit or eliminate the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions against his policies. Specifically, Trump is challenging three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state, which have blocked his executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants or those on short-term visas. Trump's acting solicitor general argues that these injunctions, which have been used extensively to block various aspects of his agenda, give too much power to individual district judges and hinder the Executive Branch's ability to implement policies.
This move is part of a broader critique of nationwide injunctions, which have been a contentious issue. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have criticized these injunctions, and some Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have questioned their constitutionality. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications, not only for Trump's policies but also for the general practice of judicial oversight of executive actions.
In other news, the Supreme Court is set to tackle several high-profile cases in its current term. One notable case involves a death penalty appeal from Oklahoma, where the court will decide whether a man, Richard Glossip, should be executed despite the state acknowledging his prosecution was "deeply flawed." This case highlights ongoing debates about the justice system and capital punishment.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has recently declined to hear an appeal from Elon Musk’s X platform regarding a search warrant in the election-interference case against former President Donald Trump. This decision reflects the court's selective approach to the cases it chooses to hear, particularly those involving high-profile figures and sensitive legal issues.
The court is also preparing to address several other critical issues, including medical marijuana, "ghost guns," and transgender care bans. These cases are part of a fraught new term for the Supreme Court, with the nation closely watching the justices' decisions amidst concerns about their ethics and impartiality.
President Joe Biden has also been in the news for calling for significant reforms to the Supreme Court, including term limits for justices and an enforceable ethics code. However, any such changes would require congressional approval, making them a long shot.
Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court. - Montre plus
