Listen to the episode on Spotify

The law often draws fine lines that can mean the difference between freedom and prison, and the Supreme Court just drew one of those lines in a case called Esteras versus United States. Here's what happened and why it matters for anyone who's ever been on probation or supervised release.

When someone gets out of prison early on supervised release, they have to follow certain rules. If they break those rules, a judge can send them back to prison. But what should the judge think about when making that decision? Should they focus on punishing the person for their original crime all over again, or should they think about helping that person stay on the right track?

In a 7-to-2 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court said judges cannot use the desire to punish someone for their original crime when deciding whether to revoke supervised release. The majority explained that supervised release is supposed to be about rehabilitation and moving forward, not about looking backward and seeking revenge for old crimes.

Summary of the Case

Edgardo Esteras pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute heroin and received 12 months in prison followed by six years of supervised release. While on supervised release, he was arrested for domestic violence. At his revocation hearing, the court found he violated his release conditions and sentenced him to 24 months in prison—higher than the recommended 6-12 months—citing his criminal history and a need "to promote respect for the law." Esteras's lawyer objected that using "retribution" as a factor was improper, though acknowledged existing precedent allowed it. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve disagreements among different circuit courts.

Opinion of the Court

In a 7-2 decision, Justice Barrett ruled that courts may not consider retributive purposes when deciding to revoke supervised release. The law governing sentencing (Section 3553(a)) lists ten factors for courts to consider. However, the section dealing with supervised release (Section 3583(e)) only references eight of those factors, notably excluding the retribution factor. Using the legal principle that specifically listing certain items implies the exclusion of others, the Court determined Congress intentionally left out retribution from supervised release decisions.

This interpretation aligns with the rehabilitative purpose of supervised release, as confirmed in previous Supreme Court cases. The Court rejected the government's arguments that the omission merely made consideration optional or that considering the "nature and circumstances" of violations inevitably involves considering their "seriousness." For future cases, the Court clarified that standard review principles apply: unpreserved claims face a higher bar for reversal, while properly preserved objections receive more favorable review.

Separate Opinions

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, agreed with the main ruling but emphasized that retribution should play no role in supervised release decisions—whether related to the original crime or the violation itself. Justice Jackson wrote separately to note that the Court didn't need to define "offense" in the relevant statute, as the key question was simply whether retribution was excluded from supervised release considerations.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, disagreed with the majority. They argued that omitting factors from the list doesn't prohibit courts from considering them—it just means they aren't mandatory. The dissenters pointed to other parts of the Sentencing Reform Act where Congress explicitly forbids certain factors, noting no such prohibition exists here. They highlighted practical problems with the majority's approach: courts must consider the "nature and circumstances" of violations and "adequate deterrence," yet cannot account for the "seriousness" or "respect for the law"—concepts that often overlap. They warned this would create unworkable practices and micromanage how judges explain their decisions.

When Punishment and Rehabilitation Collide: The Supreme Court's Supervised Release Decision

The Supreme Court's ruling clarifies an important distinction in federal sentencing. When judges initially sentence defendants, they consider ten factors, including both forward-looking goals (deterrence, public safety, rehabilitation) and backward-looking punishment (retribution). However, supervised release serves a different purpose. When deciding whether to revoke someone's supervised release, judges should focus only on rehabilitation and preventing future crimes—not on punishing past behavior.

This distinction matters because it affects how courts handle violations of supervised release conditions. The Court determined that Congress intentionally excluded retribution from these decisions, consistent with supervised release's rehabilitative purpose. This interpretation maintains sentencing uniformity: punishment for the original crime happens at the initial sentencing, while supervised release decisions focus on helping the person reintegrate into society and preventing new offenses.

For defendants, this means courts cannot extend their imprisonment after a supervised release violation simply to punish them more for their original crime. For judges, it means focusing on whether additional prison time serves rehabilitation or public safety—not retribution. The ruling doesn't create technical traps for judges but ensures they apply the law as Congress intended, with appropriate review by appellate courts when mistakes occur.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

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. By breaking up what the EPA calls an “omnibus” rule into its pieces, the justices made clear that each plan needs its own fresh look. They also ruled that because the agency focused on state-specific data rather than on a broad, countrywide impact, the exception that would force review in D.C. doesn’t apply. Stay tuned after the break to find out what this means for future challenges to environmental rules and how it could shape the battle over clean air.

Summary of the Case

In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened the air quality standard for ground-level ozone. Under the Clean Air Act's "Good Neighbor" provision, states must submit plans showing how they'll prevent their emissions from affecting neighboring states' ability to meet these standards. The EPA reviewed plans from 21 states, disapproved them, and published all these disapprovals in a single document. In this document, the EPA stated that any challenges should be filed in the D.C. Circuit Court.

Several states, including Oklahoma and Utah, along with industry groups, sued in their regional circuit courts instead. When the Tenth Circuit transferred Oklahoma and Utah's challenges to the D.C. Circuit, the Supreme Court stepped in to resolve a key question: Should challenges to EPA's disapprovals of state plans be heard in the D.C. Circuit or in the appropriate regional circuit courts?

Opinion of the Court

Justice Thomas, writing for a six-Justice majority, applied a two-step framework from a recent case (EPA v. Calumet). First, courts must identify whether the EPA's action is "nationally applicable" or just "locally or regionally applicable." Second, if the action is only locally or regionally applicable, courts must determine if there's an exception because the action is "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect."

The Court held that each state plan disapproval is a separate action under the law. The Clean Air Act specifically treats actions on state implementation plans as locally or regionally applicable. The EPA's decision to bundle 21 disapprovals into one document doesn't transform them into a single nationwide action.

The Court also rejected the EPA's argument that these disapprovals fell within the "nationwide scope or effect" exception. Although the EPA used some common approaches across all reviews, these were just tools in what remained state-specific analyses. No single nationwide determination drove all the disapprovals. Therefore, challenges to the Oklahoma and Utah disapprovals must proceed in their regional circuit courts, not the D.C. Circuit.

Separate Opinions

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, agreed with the outcome but disagreed with the majority's approach. He would have relied strictly on the text of the Clean Air Act without adopting the two-step framework. Gorsuch believed the statute clearly indicates that state plan denials should be reviewed in regional courts unless the law explicitly says otherwise.

No Justice dissented. Justice Alito did not participate in the case.

Understanding Venue Rules in Clean Air Act Challenges

The Clean Air Act creates specific rules about where EPA actions can be challenged in court. It draws a clear line between "nationally applicable" actions (which can only be challenged in the D.C. Circuit) and "locally or regionally applicable" actions (which must be challenged in the regional circuit court where the affected state is located).

There's an exception: if a local or regional action is "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect," and the EPA officially declares this in its publication, then the case can go to the D.C. Circuit instead.

This structure ensures that challenges are directed to the appropriate court based on the nature of the EPA's action, not on how the EPA packages its decisions. The law recognizes that some regional decisions might have national implications, but it requires the EPA to explicitly state when a decision is primarily driven by factors that apply uniformly across all states.

This approach balances the Clean Air Act's design as a cooperative federal-state program with the occasional need for uniform national regulation. In this case, the Court determined that the EPA's disapprovals of state plans remained separate state-specific actions, despite being published together, and therefore challenges should be heard in the regional circuit courts.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

Courts often wrestle with subtle rules about where a case should be heard. Here, the debate was over a single refinery’s request for relief under the Clean Air Act and whether the EPA’s denial should land in a local court or in Washington.

The Supreme Court noted that saying “no” to one refinery is a decision about that one plant. But because the EPA used nationwide rules to reach its decision, the case belongs in the D.C. Circuit instead of the Fifth Circuit in Texas. In the end, the Justices wiped out the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and sent the whole matter back for another look under those national guidelines.

Summary of the Case

In 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency issued two omnibus notices denying 105 small refineries' petitions for hardship exemptions under the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Program (RFP). Small refineries, defined as those processing no more than 75,000 barrels per day, may petition EPA for an exemption from blending obligations "for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship." EPA's denials rested on (1) a uniform interpretation that hardship must be caused by RFP compliance, and (2) an economic model—its "RIN passthrough" theory—presuming no small refinery bears a disproportionate cost. EPA characterized its denials as reviewable only in the D.C. Circuit, either as "nationally applicable" actions or, alternately, as locally applicable actions "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect." Petitions were filed instead in multiple regional circuits. All but the Fifth Circuit either dismissed or transferred the cases; the Fifth retained venue, rejected EPA's statutory arguments on venue, and vacated EPA's denials on the merits. EPA sought the Supreme Court's review to resolve a circuit split over venue under the Clean Air Act.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Thomas, writing for a 7–2 majority (Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson), held that EPA's denials of individual exemption petitions are "locally or regionally applicable" actions that nonetheless fall within the Clean Air Act's "nationwide scope or effect" exception, thus channeling venue to the D.C. Circuit. First, the "action" at issue is EPA's denial of each refinery's petition, as defined by the RFP exemption provision, not EPA's choice to aggregate denials. Those denials are locally applicable because each applies only to a particular refinery. Second, although locally applicable actions generally go to regional circuits, the law directs that any locally applicable action "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect" (and accompanied by EPA's published finding) must be reviewed in the D.C. Circuit. A "determination" is any agency conclusion, and it is of nationwide scope or effect if it applies across the country and forms the core driver of the action. Here, EPA's uniform interpretation of "disproportionate economic hardship" and its RIN passthrough theory apply to all refineries and served as the primary basis for its denials (with refinery-specific facts considered only to confirm a presumption). The Fifth Circuit therefore erred in retaining venue. Judgment vacated; remanded for transfer and further proceedings.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, dissented. He agreed the individual petition denials are locally applicable. But he would confine the "nationwide scope or effect" exception to cases in which a substantive Clean Air Act provision itself calls on EPA to make a nationwide determination. Since the small-refinery exemption scheme requires only refinery-specific determinations—whether each petitioning facility would suffer disproportionate economic hardship—Gorsuch would leave venue in the Fifth Circuit and employ a bright-line, text-rooted test rather than the majority's multistep "core driver" inquiry.

Understanding Venue Rules for EPA Decisions: When Local Cases Go National

The Clean Air Act establishes a three-part framework for determining where challenges to EPA decisions must be heard:

1. Nationally applicable actions (like setting new air quality standards) must be challenged in the D.C. Circuit Court
2. Locally or regionally applicable actions (like approving a state's implementation plan) ordinarily go to the appropriate regional circuit court
3. However, any locally applicable action "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect," if EPA publishes that finding, must also be heard in the D.C. Circuit

To identify what constitutes an "action," courts look to the specific Clean Air Act provision authorizing it—in this case, EPA's duty to respond to small refinery exemption petitions. An action is "based on" a nationwide determination only if that determination is the primary, "core" justification driving the agency's decision—not just one of many factors considered. The term "determination" simply means an agency's settled conclusion.

Courts independently review whether EPA's action truly rested on such a nationwide determination, while giving EPA discretion to invoke the exception. This structure ensures that nationally significant policy decisions are centralized in the D.C. Circuit, while truly local matters remain in regional courts unless they genuinely rest on a nationwide policy determination.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

With a sharp focus on where law meets medicine, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers and hormones for minors seeking care for gender dysphoria or to live as a gender different from their birth sex. The justices said this law doesn’t single out transgender kids but sets rules based on age and medical treatment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that, in situations where scientists and doctors still debate, courts should give room for states to protect young people’s health.

Several justices added separate notes to explain parts of their agreement, while Justices Sotomayor and Kagan issued a strong dissent, warning that this ban risks harming vulnerable children and cutting off their access to care.

Summary of the Case

In 2023, Tennessee passed a law called SB1, which prohibits healthcare providers from giving puberty blockers or hormones to minors for gender-affirming care. The law specifically bans these treatments when used to help minors identify with a gender different from their birth sex or to treat distress from gender incongruence. However, the same medications remain available for adults and for minors with other medical conditions like precocious puberty or certain diseases.

Three transgender minors, their parents, and a physician challenged the law as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, and the U.S. government joined their case. Initially, a federal district court blocked the law, ruling that it discriminated based on sex and transgender status. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, accepting Tennessee's argument that medical uncertainty provided a rational basis for the law.

The Supreme Court then took up the case to determine whether Tennessee's law violates equal protection rights.

How the Supreme Court Ruled on Gender-Affirming Care Restrictions

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and partially by Justice Alito.

The majority ruled that the law doesn't trigger heightened scrutiny because it classifies people based on two non-suspect grounds: age (adults versus minors) and medical purpose (gender dysphoria treatment versus other medical conditions). The Court determined that the law doesn't discriminate based on sex or transgender status.

According to the majority, merely referring to sex in defining a medical procedure doesn't automatically require intermediate scrutiny. They found that the law applies equally to all minors regardless of sex and doesn't reveal any discriminatory intent.

The Court also rejected the argument that the law classifies based on transgender status, stating that it excludes certain diagnoses from covered medical conditions rather than targeting transgender people themselves. The majority distinguished this case from Bostock v. Clayton County (an employment discrimination case), saying that changing a patient's sex wouldn't alter how the law operates since it focuses on diagnosis, not identity.

Under the less stringent rational-basis review, the Court found that Tennessee's concerns about medical risks, minors' maturity, potential regret, and alternative treatments provided sufficient justification for the law's restrictions.

Separate Opinions

Several justices wrote separate opinions:

Justice Thomas concurred but declined to extend the reasoning from Bostock beyond employment discrimination cases. He also warned against excessive deference to medical experts in constitutional cases.

Justice Barrett agreed that transgender status is not a suspect class warranting heightened scrutiny.

Justice Alito joined parts of the majority opinion but wrote separately to say he would have upheld the law even under heightened scrutiny.

In dissent, Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justices Jackson and Kagan) argued that the law clearly classifies based on sex and transgender status because it allows these medications only when they align with birth sex. She contended that intermediate scrutiny should apply, and under that standard, Tennessee failed to show its ban was substantially related to protecting minors' health.

Justice Kagan wrote a separate dissent (joined by Justices Jackson and Sotomayor) agreeing that intermediate scrutiny should apply.

The Medical and Legal Debate Behind Gender-Affirming Care Bans

Tennessee's law reflects the legislature's concerns about the growing use of puberty blockers and hormones for treating gender dysphoria in minors. The state cited worries about potential irreversible effects, including sterility, health risks, and psychological consequences. The law also referenced minors' limited capacity to fully understand long-term outcomes and reports of regret.

The law makes a critical distinction: it permits these medications for traditional medical conditions but prohibits them when used to facilitate gender identity different from birth sex or to treat distress related to gender dysphoria.

The dissenting justices argued that this distinction itself reveals the sex-based nature of the law, as the same treatment is allowed or banned depending on whether it preserves or challenges birth sex alignment. This fundamental disagreement about how to classify the law's restrictions formed the core of the Court's split decision.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

Here’s a twist in the way the law works: when a prisoner sues under the rule that says you must try every step inside prison before going to court, who decides if those steps really happened — a judge or a jury? The Supreme Court says that when those questions get mixed up with the heart of the case, a jury must decide. That’s because the law on prisoner complaints doesn’t spell out who sorts that out, and normally any factual fight tied to the main claim goes to a jury. This ruling settles a fight where different appeals courts had different answers. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the five-justice majority, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson. Justice Barrett, joined by three colleagues, disagreed and would have left those decisions to judges.

Summary of the Case

Kyle Richards, a Michigan state inmate, sued prison officer Thomas Perttu, alleging that Perttu had sexually harassed him and other inmates and then destroyed Richards's grievance forms when he tried to complain. Perttu moved for summary judgment, arguing that Richards failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing, found Richards's witnesses not credible, and recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The District Court adopted that recommendation. On appeal, a three-judge Sixth Circuit panel reversed, holding that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury trial whenever resolution of a PLRA-exhaustion dispute is "intertwined" with a claim that itself entitles the plaintiff to a jury. That decision conflicted with other circuit court precedent. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether prisoners have a right to jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that question overlaps with the merits of their claim.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the 5–4 majority (joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson), affirmed the Sixth Circuit. The Court first applied the constitutional-avoidance principle, asking whether the PLRA can be read to confer a jury trial right and thereby avoid resolving whether Congress could have required judge-only factfinding without violating the Seventh Amendment. The majority held that PLRA exhaustion is an affirmative defense subject to the "usual practice" under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that under that background practice, courts send factual disputes intertwined with the merits to a jury. The PLRA is "silent" on whether a judge or jury must decide exhaustion and contains no indication that Congress intended to change these common-law principles. Nor does the PLRA's purpose of conserving judicial resources overcome the weight of this usual practice. Historical precedents confirm that factual questions intertwined with the merits belong before a jury. Accordingly, the Court interpreted the PLRA to require a jury trial on exhaustion when it overlaps with a claim that carries a Seventh Amendment right.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Barrett, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, dissented. She argued that the Court improperly reframed a purely constitutional question as a statutory one, creating out of thin air a rule that the PLRA "implicitly" confers a jury right. She maintained that neither the text nor the history of the PLRA supports such an inference, and that the majority misapplied precedents designed only to guide judicial sequencing of legal and equitable claims, not to expand the jury-trial right itself.

When Prison Grievances and Jury Rights Collide: The Supreme Court's PLRA Decision

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires inmates to exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing lawsuits. But what happens when the very person an inmate is suing allegedly prevented them from filing grievances? This case addressed exactly that situation. The Court determined that when factual disputes about whether an inmate properly exhausted administrative remedies overlap with the merits of their underlying claim, those disputes must be decided by a jury rather than a judge.

This ruling is significant because it recognizes that in cases where the same facts are central to both whether an inmate followed proper grievance procedures and whether their rights were violated, those factual questions should be decided together by a jury. The Court interpreted the PLRA's silence on who decides exhaustion disputes as incorporating the traditional legal practice of having juries resolve factual issues when those issues are intertwined with claims that carry a constitutional right to jury trial.

By ruling this way, the Court avoided directly addressing whether Congress could have required judges to decide these factual disputes without violating the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of jury trials. Instead, the Court found that the PLRA itself, properly interpreted, preserves the jury's traditional role in resolving factual disputes central to the merits of a case.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

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 lower court, the Justices kept the license in place but left a big question open—did the agency even have the power to issue that permit in the first place? Stay with us—there’s more coming up that dives into why this door was left ajar.

Summary of the Case

In 2016 Interim Storage Partners (ISP) applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a 40-year license to build and operate an off-site spent nuclear-fuel storage facility in Andrews County, Texas. During the ensuing administrative proceeding the NRC undertook (1) a full safety review, (2) a draft and final environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act, and (3) a hearing on license "intervention." The State of Texas and a nearby landowner, Fasken Land and Minerals, submitted extensive comments on the draft environmental impact statement and repeatedly sought—and were denied—party status in the NRC hearing. In September 2021 the NRC granted ISP's license. Texas and Fasken then sued in the Fifth Circuit, claiming the agency lacked statutory authority to license private, off-site storage. The Fifth Circuit held Texas and Fasken could challenge the order as "parties aggrieved" and invalidated the license. The NRC and ISP sought review from the Supreme Court.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a 6-justice majority, held that under the relevant laws, only a license applicant or someone who has successfully intervened and become "a party" to the NRC's licensing proceeding may obtain judicial review of the final order. Texas never applied for the license, and Fasken's petition to intervene was denied and that denial upheld by the D.C. Circuit. Merely commenting on an environmental impact statement or unsuccessfully seeking intervention does not suffice to become a "party" entitled to sue. Nor may Fasken relitigate its challenge to the intervention ruling—the D.C. Circuit's decision is final. The Fifth Circuit's theory that courts can review clearly unauthorized agency actions likewise fails where a statutory review scheme provides an adequate alternative. Accordingly, the petitions must be dismissed for want of party status; the Court therefore does not decide whether the NRC exceeded its statutory authority.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, would reach the merits and hold the NRC's license unlawful. He emphasizes that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permits interim storage only "at the site of each civilian nuclear reactor" or at "facilities owned by the Federal Government," forbidding private, off-site storage. He argues neither the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 nor its regulations may override that express Congressional command. He further contends Texas and Fasken were parties aggrieved because they actively participated in the NRC's environmental review—statutorily required and incorporated into the license—and so qualify for judicial review.

Who Can Challenge Nuclear Waste Storage Decisions? The Legal Standing Dilemma

The legal framework for nuclear waste storage has evolved over time. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 did not address spent-fuel storage, as it anticipated reprocessing rather than storage. Congress first tackled storage in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which directs that interim storage occur only at reactors or on federal land and states that nothing in the Act should be construed to encourage or authorize private off-site storage.

NRC's regulations from 1980 predated this Act and contemplated "away-from-reactor" facilities, but regulations cannot override clear statutory directives. The various licensing provisions in existing law authorize specific uses—research, industrial, medical—not long-term passive storage. General provisions in older laws must be read in context and cannot override a later, more specific statute.

The case also highlights an important distinction in who can challenge agency decisions. The standard of being a "party aggrieved" differs from simply being a "person aggrieved," as it requires formal party status in the agency proceeding—whether by intervention or otherwise. Courts can review clearly unauthorized agency actions only in narrow circumstances, and this exception is unavailable when the law already provides adequate judicial review procedures.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

A little-known detail about how one law can push another out of the way is the subject of this case. The Supreme Court looked at two rules for paying special combat benefits to veterans. One law, the Combat-Related Special Compensation statute, says the Secretary of Defense gets to decide who qualifies and how much they receive. An older law, called the Barring Act, set up its own claim process and a six-year deadline.

The justices, speaking through Justice Thomas in a unanimous opinion, said the CRSC rule stands on its own. Because it’s a separate law, it replaces the Barring Act’s steps and time limit. In plain terms, veterans seeking these extra payments will follow the newer CRSC path and won’t be blocked by the old six-year window.

Summary of the Case

Petitioner Simon Soto, a Marine Corps veteran medically retired in 2006 with a 100 percent VA disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder, applied in 2016 for "combat-related special compensation" (CRSC). Although the Navy approved his CRSC status, it limited retroactive payments to six years, citing the six-year statute of limitations in the "Barring Act." Soto filed a nationwide class-action suit arguing that the CRSC law itself provides authority to settle claims, thereby displacing the Barring Act's default procedures and time limits. The district court ruled in favor of Soto's class, but the Federal Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case to resolve whether the CRSC law displaces the Barring Act.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Court, affirmed that the CRSC law provides an independent settlement mechanism and thus displaces the Barring Act. The Court defined "settlement" of Government claims as involving two key powers: determining if a claim is valid and calculating the amount owed. The Court emphasized that Congress doesn't need to use the specific word "settle" to grant settlement authority.

The CRSC law gives military department Secretaries authority to administer these benefits: it directs them to consider whether each applicant is eligible (resolving claim validity) and prescribes how to determine the monthly amount payable. Read as a whole, the CRSC law establishes a "self-contained, comprehensive compensation scheme" that authorizes the Secretary to perform both settlement functions, thereby displacing the six-year limitation period.

The Court rejected the Federal Circuit's insistence on requiring explicit settlement language or a specific limitations period. Congress can create a compensation scheme without including a time limit; the absence of such a period reflects a deliberate choice appropriate for a narrowly defined class of beneficiaries. The Court also dismissed the Government's policy concerns, finding that the statutory text and structure were sufficient to resolve the case.

How Veterans' Benefits Laws Override General Time Limits

At the heart of this case is the relationship between the Barring Act's default claims-settlement system and the special law Congress created for combat-related compensation. The Barring Act serves as a fallback—authorizing government agencies to "settle" certain military-pay claims and imposing a six-year deadline—unless "another law" provides settlement authority.

Congress doesn't need to explicitly label a statute as a "settlement" law. Instead, courts look at whether the law assigns an agency to (1) evaluate if claims are valid and (2) calculate how much is owed. The CRSC law includes both elements: it directs the Secretary to "consider" eligibility and instructs how to "determine" the monthly payment amount.

The absence of a time limit in the CRSC law is significant: it shows Congress chose not to impose deadlines for this special category of combat-disabled veterans. This structure indicates a legislative decision to completely replace the Barring Act's framework, even without using the word "settle" or specifying an alternative time limit.

The Court's analysis highlights an important principle of statutory interpretation: when Congress creates a specific, self-contained benefits system that includes both elements of settlement authority, that law governs—regardless of whether it contains traditional legal terminology or deadlines. The Soto decision reinforces that a law's effect comes from its text, context, and structure, not from specific magic words.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

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. He never filed a second notice. The Fourth Circuit said that meant his case was off the table. But the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that the original notice reaches forward to the moment the court reopens the clock, so no new filing is needed. Chief Justice Roberts and four others agreed, while Justice Neil Gorsuch disagreed in dissent. This subtle shift in timing rules shows how a small wrinkle in court procedures can make all the difference.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Inmate's Appeal Rights

Donte Parrish, a federal inmate, spent 23 months in segregated confinement based on suspicions of involvement in another prisoner's death. After administrative hearings cleared him of misconduct, Parrish sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for wrongful disciplinary confinement. The District Court dismissed portions of his suit on March 23, 2020. Parrish, by then transferred to state custody, did not receive that judgment until June 25, 2020, and filed a notice of appeal immediately upon receipt—well after the standard 60-day deadline. The Fourth Circuit recharacterized his late filing as a motion to reopen the appeal window, which the District Court granted for 14 days. However, Parrish did not file a new notice during this reopened period. The Fourth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed his appeal.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision. The Court held that a notice of appeal filed after the original window but before a reopening order is not "late" with respect to the reopened period but merely "premature." Under long-standing legal precedent dating back to the 1800s, a premature but adequate notice "relates forward" to the date the court makes the appeal possible. The Court observed that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure codify this principle and that nothing in the rules or their purpose of ensuring "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" suggests otherwise. Accordingly, Parrish's single filing was sufficient to establish jurisdiction for his appeal.

Separate Opinions

Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred only in the judgment. They agreed that Parrish's appeal should proceed but based their reasoning on different grounds. In their view, Parrish's original submission functioned simultaneously as a reopening motion and as the proposed notice of appeal. Once the District Court granted reopening, that filing should simply have been docketed as a timely notice, eliminating the need for any second filing.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the Supreme Court should not have decided the case at all. He would have dismissed the petition, noting that the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules has already begun studying potential amendments to the relevant rule. In his view, resolving this question through the rulemaking process—rather than judicial decision—would better respect the separation of powers and avoid interfering with the Committee's work.

When Early Appeal Notices Can Still Be Valid

At the heart of this case is whether an appeal notice filed too early can automatically become valid when a court reopens the appeal window. The Court ruled that when someone files an appeal notice before a court officially reopens the appeal period, that early filing isn't invalid—it simply "ripens" once the court grants the extension. This builds on a well-established legal tradition that premature notices can "relate forward" to the moment they become proper, as long as no party is harmed by this approach. 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.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

At the center of a subtle change in disability law, the Supreme Court has said that students claiming their schools discriminated against them don’t have to prove that officials acted in “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” Instead, those students use the same straightforward rules that apply to other cases of disability discrimination.

This ruling overturns a higher bar set by the Eighth Circuit, which had made it tougher for students to bring their claims forward. Now the Supreme Court sent the case back to that court to be handled under the usual standards.

With this decision, families will face a clearer path when they say their children were denied equal access in the classroom. Stay tuned—we’ll break down what this means for schools and for kids across the country.

Summary of the Case

A. J. T. is a teenage student with a severe form of epilepsy whose seizures preclude her from attending school before noon but leave her able to learn from noon to 6 p.m. After moving to Osseo Area Schools (Dist. No. 279), her parents twice sought to include evening instruction in her IEP; the district denied those requests, cutting her instructional day to 4.25 hours versus 6.5 for nondisabled peers. They prevailed on an IDEA administrative complaint and in federal court, securing compensatory education and after-hours instruction. They then sued under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the district on the ground that educational discrimination claims require a heightened showing of "bad faith or gross misjudgment" (Monahan v. Nebraska), which A. J. T. had not made. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split over whether ADA/§ 504 claims involving public-school services must satisfy that elevated standard.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, held that Title II and § 504 claimants relating to educational services are subject to the same requirements applied elsewhere under those statutes—no showing of intent to discriminate is required to obtain injunctive relief, and intentional discrimination (often shown by "deliberate indifference") is required only for compensatory damages. The Court observed that both statutes prohibit discrimination "by reason of" disability and confer remedies on "any person." It rejected the Eighth Circuit's Monahan-derived "bad faith or gross misjudgment" rule as incompatible with IDEA's non-exclusivity provision, and vacated and remanded the judgment.

Separate Opinions

Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Kavanaugh) concurred in full but stated that, in a future case properly presented, he would revisit whether ADA/§ 504 should uniformly require intent to discriminate—contending that "discrimination" necessarily implies intent and that Title II's prescriptions on States implicate Spending- and Fourteenth-Amendment limits.

Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Jackson) emphasized that the statutes' text and legislative history refute any improper-purpose gloss, underscoring that discrimination "most often" stems from "benign neglect" and that passive-voice drafting and affirmative-accommodation duties confirm no animus requirement.

How Disability Discrimination Standards Apply in Education Settings

The relationship between different disability laws is crucial to understanding this case. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act broadly prohibit discrimination based on disability and allow for both injunctive relief and monetary damages. Meanwhile, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) specifically ensures appropriate education through individualized programs.

After a previous Supreme Court case limited disability rights, Congress clarified that IDEA procedures don't restrict rights available under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. The Eighth Circuit's requirement for showing "bad faith or gross misjudgment" in education cases improperly narrowed the protections that should be available under disability discrimination laws.

The Court's ruling confirms that the standards for proving discrimination should be consistent across different contexts - whether in schools, workplaces, or public services. For injunctive relief (like ordering a school to provide evening instruction), no proof of discriminatory intent is needed. Only when seeking monetary damages must a plaintiff show intentional discrimination, typically through evidence of "deliberate indifference" to their rights.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

Every so often, the Court takes a magnifying glass to a small but powerful part of a law. In Martin v. United States, the justices looked at one section of the Federal Tort Claims Act—the rule about when someone can sue the federal government. They said the special “law enforcement” safety net only applies if an officer meant to do harm. It doesn’t wipe out other rules that protect government choices or other exceptions. They also made clear that the Supremacy Clause—often used to shield federal actions—can’t be used here to block claims. The case goes back to the Eleventh Circuit to sort out whether government decisions or mistakes can still be challenged under state law.

Summary of the Case

On October 18, 2017, FBI agents made a serious mistake. Intending to execute warrants at 3741 Landau Lane, they instead raided 3756 Denville Trace in suburban Atlanta. The agents deployed a SWAT team, detonated a flash-bang grenade, handcuffed the occupants, and assaulted them before realizing they were at the wrong address. Curtrina Martin, Hilliard Toi Cliatt, and their child sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging both negligent and intentional wrongdoing.

The district court granted summary judgment for the Government, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed using a unique approach. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case to decide two key questions: (1) whether the FTCA's "law enforcement proviso" applies beyond just intentional torts, and (2) whether the Supremacy Clause gives the Government any defense in these types of lawsuits.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Gorsuch, writing for a unanimous Court, held:

1. The law enforcement proviso in the FTCA only limits the intentional-tort exception in that same subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or any other exceptions. The proviso appears in the same sentence as the intentional-tort clause, refers only to "this subsection," and specifically addresses claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution by "investigative or law enforcement officers."

2. The Supremacy Clause does not provide the United States a defense under the FTCA. The FTCA itself is the "supreme" federal law on tort liability for federal employees, making the Government liable under state law on the same terms as private individuals. No federal statute or constitutional provision displaces Georgia tort law in this case.

The Court vacated the lower court's decision and sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit to determine which claims survive without reference to the law enforcement proviso, and for remaining claims, whether Georgia law would impose liability on a private person "under like circumstances."

Separate Opinions

Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Jackson) filed a concurrence emphasizing that the Eleventh Circuit must apply a two-step test when reevaluating the discretionary-function exception. First, ask whether the acts involve "judgment or choice" not limited by specific federal directives; second, determine whether the judgment involved "public policy" considerations that Congress intended to shield. She highlighted the ambiguity in lower courts over whether careless conduct or constitutional violations fall outside the exception and urged the court to consider the FTCA's legislative history—especially its enactment in response to "wrong-house" raids—to ensure victims of law enforcement misconduct have proper remedies.

Understanding When the Government Can Be Sued for Law Enforcement Mistakes

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows people to sue the federal government for wrongdoing by its employees, but with important limitations. The Act contains several exceptions that protect the government from liability in certain situations.

At issue in this case was how two of these exceptions interact. The "intentional-tort exception" normally prevents lawsuits against the government for intentional wrongdoing like assault or false imprisonment. However, a special provision (the "law enforcement proviso") creates an exception to this exception, allowing people to sue when law enforcement officers commit these specific acts.

Separately, the "discretionary-function exception" protects the government from liability when employees exercise judgment in their official duties.

The Court clarified that the law enforcement proviso only modifies the intentional-tort exception, not the discretionary-function exception. This means that while victims can sue for intentional misconduct by law enforcement officers, the government might still be protected if the actions involved discretionary judgment.

The Court also rejected the government's argument that the Supremacy Clause provides additional protection beyond what's specifically listed in the FTCA. Instead, the government is subject to the same liability standards as private individuals under state law, with only limited defenses specifically provided in the law.

This framework preserves both the right of victims to sue individual officers and their right to recover damages from the United States under state law standards that Congress chose to adopt in the FTCA.