9Robes

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions shape the laws and lives of every American. Yet, understanding these rulings can be a challenge, often clouded by complex legal jargon and lengthy opinions. 9robes creates summaries of Supreme Court opinions using plain language and focuses on the facts.

Here, you’ll find clear, concise summaries of every Supreme Court opinion, stripped of legalese and written in plain language. For the informed citizen, these summaries are designed to give you a deeper understanding of the cases that define our nation’s legal landscape.

Each post breaks down the facts, explains the court’s reasoning, and highlights the nuances that often go unnoticed. This isn’t just about what the court decided—it's about why those decisions matter. It’s about connecting the dots between the court’s opinions and the real-world impact they have on individuals and society as a whole.

By reading these summaries, you’ll gain insights into the inner workings of the highest court in the land, demystifying decisions that can sometimes feel distant or inaccessible. Whether you want to stay informed, debate with friends, or simply satisfy your curiosity, this blog offers a gateway to understanding the pivotal rulings that shape our laws and lives.

Stay informed. Stay engaged. Know the decisions that define America.

Recent posts

Soto v. United States, Docket No. 24-320

The Court held that the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and limitations period. The Court found that the CRSC statute creates a separate settlement mechanism that authorizes the Secretary concerned to determine both the validity of CRSC claims and the amount due on them, thereby constituting "another law" that displaces the Barring Act's default procedures, including its 6-year limitations period.

Parrish v. United States, Docket No. 24-275

When a door closes only to be cracked open again, does your first knock still count? In Parrish v. United States, the Court said it does. A man filed his notice of appeal after the official deadline but before a judge agreed to reopen the time limit. The Court found that federal rules support this principle and that requiring a duplicate filing would create unnecessary procedural hurdles, particularly for those without legal representation. This ruling ensures that technical timing issues won't prevent people from having their appeals heard, especially when delays in receiving court decisions are beyond their control.

A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279, Docket No. 24-249

The Supreme Court unanimously held that schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of "bad faith or gross misjudgment" but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. The Court rejected the Eighth Circuit's application of a more demanding standard for education-related disability discrimination claims.

Martin v. United States, Docket No. 24-362

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Eleventh Circuit's decision, holding that: (1) the law enforcement proviso in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) overrides only the intentional-tort exception in §2680(h), not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout §2680; and (2) the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits. The Court directed the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider whether the discretionary-function exception bars the plaintiffs' negligent or intentional tort claims without reference to its mistaken views.

Rivers v. Guerrero, Docket No. 23-1345

This case shines a light on a small but important twist in the rules for people challenging their convictions in federal court. The Supreme Court said that as soon as a judge has made a final decision on a first petition, any new petition on the same issue counts as a “second or successive” filing. This interpretation balances the twin aims of allowing meaningful collateral review while safeguarding finality and judicial economy, preventing indefinite filings during appeal, and discouraging piecemeal litigation.

Commissioner v. Zuch, Docket No. 24-416

Under federal law, the Tax Court can only review an IRS determination about whether it may seize assets to cover unpaid taxes — a process called a levy. In Commissioner v. Zuch, the IRS stopped its levy because the taxpayer’s debt was wiped out by earlier overpayments. The Supreme Court's decision clarifies the limited role Congress created for collection due process hearings.

BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, Docket No. 23-1259

In Blom Bank v. Honickman, a bank asked to reopen a closed case so it could tweak its complaint. But there’s a rule that says you can only reopen a case for really rare, compelling reasons; so rare that they call them “extraordinary circumstances.” This decision provides important guidance on the balance between finality in litigation and opportunities to correct pleadings.

Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Comm’n., Docket No. 24-154

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Wisconsin's application of its unemployment compensation tax exemption statute violated the First Amendment. The Court held that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute, which denied an exemption to Catholic Charities because they neither engaged in proselytization nor limited their charitable services to Catholics, constituted denominational discrimination by differentiating between religions based on theological lines. The Court applied strict scrutiny and found that Wisconsin failed to demonstrate that its application of the law was narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.

Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis, Docket No. 24-304

The Supreme Court was ready to weigh in on whether a lawsuit for damages could include people who were never hurt alongside those who actually suffered harm, but then it decided not to decide. This case reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing the need to address widespread discrimination through class actions while preventing overly broad certifications that might lead to unfair settlements or violate defendants' due process rights.

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, Docket No. 23-1039

The Supreme Court looked at a rule from the Sixth Circuit that said people in the majority group had to show more proof than others to win a discrimination case under Title VII. Title VII's text makes no distinctions among protected-class members; it forbids discrimination "against any individual." Previous Supreme Court decisions affirm that Title VII prohibits discriminatory preference for "any group, minority or majority," and that courts should avoid rigid formulations when evaluating discrimination claims.