Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

The Supreme Court has made it much harder for states to ban conversion therapy, the controversial practice of trying to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. In a decision that split the justices and alarmed civil rights advocates, the Court ruled that Colorado's ban on the practice violates free speech rights when applied to talk therapy. The ruling could affect similar laws in 25 other states and raises urgent questions about what protections minors have when seeking help from licensed counselors.

The Case: A Colorado Counselor Challenges a Ban

Kaley Chiles is a licensed mental health counselor in Colorado who provides talk therapy to minors. Some of her young clients come to her wanting to reduce same-sex attractions or align their gender identity with their biological sex. In 2019, Colorado banned licensed counselors from practicing conversion therapy with minors, defining it as any attempt to change sexual orientation or gender identity, including through talk alone.

Chiles sued, arguing the law violated her right to free speech. She said her work is pure speech because she uses only words, no medications or procedures. Lower courts disagreed, saying the law regulates professional conduct, not speech. The Supreme Court took the case to settle conflicting rulings among lower courts.

The Arguments: Free Speech Versus Medical Regulation

Chiles's lawyers made a straightforward claim: because she uses only words, her therapy is speech protected by the First Amendment. They argued Colorado's law unfairly takes sides in a debate by allowing therapists to affirm LGBTQ+ identities while banning efforts to change them. This is called viewpoint discrimination, and it's one of the most serious violations of free speech law.

Colorado countered that the law regulates medical treatment, not speech. States have long regulated healthcare professionals, the state argued, and a therapist's words function like a prescription. Colorado also pointed to statements from major medical organizations saying conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful.

The federal government sided with Chiles, offering a powerful historical argument: if Colorado's reasoning were correct, a state in the 1970s could have banned therapists from telling gay patients they were not sick, since homosexuality was then classified as a mental disorder. Everyone agrees that would have been unconstitutional. So the same standard must apply today.

What the Court Decided

Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by eight justices. The Court ruled that Colorado's law regulates speech based on viewpoint and must meet the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, called strict scrutiny. This is the hardest standard for any law to survive.

The Court's logic was direct: Chiles uses only words, so her therapy is speech. Colorado's law restricts that speech by allowing her to express one viewpoint while forbidding another. Calling speech a "treatment" doesn't change its constitutional protection. The Court also rejected the idea that the law only incidentally burdens speech. It directly targets what Chiles is allowed to say based on the message itself.

The Court dismissed Colorado's argument about regulating healthcare. State licensing of counselors only began in 1976 and traditionally focused on qualifications, not silencing particular viewpoints. The Court sent the case back to lower courts, instructing them to apply strict scrutiny. Colorado must now prove the law serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve it, a very difficult standard to meet.

Where the Justices Disagreed

Justice Kagan agreed the law engages in viewpoint discrimination but wrote separately to flag an important limit. Not every content-based healthcare law automatically demands the highest scrutiny, she argued. A law that banned all talk therapy on sexual orientation for minors, covering both affirming and conversion approaches equally, might survive under a less demanding standard. Her concurrence essentially offers states a roadmap: regulate viewpoint-neutrally, and you might avoid this ruling.

Justice Jackson dissented alone. She argued the majority misunderstands what happens when states regulate medical care that involves speech. Chiles is a licensed medical professional subject to healthcare regulation, not a speaker being censored for her ideas. Jackson warned that the majority's reasoning could make it nearly impossible to regulate any therapy involving practitioner speech, since medical standards of care are inherently based on professional judgment about what helps patients.

Limited States' Power to Ban Conversion Therapy

The decision is both sweeping and incomplete. The Court established one clear rule: states cannot regulate talk therapy based on viewpoint. But it did not strike down Colorado's law or apply strict scrutiny itself. That falls to lower courts now.

The practical impact is significant. Twenty-five states have conversion therapy bans, many written like Colorado's. Those laws are now constitutionally vulnerable. States wanting to regulate in this area will likely need to draft laws that treat all approaches equally, rather than allowing some while banning others.

The deeper tension the Court left unresolved is real: medical standards of care are inherently based on professional judgment about what works and what harms patients. The majority's answer is that the First Amendment prevents the government from turning prevailing professional opinion into enforced conformity, especially given that professional consensus has been wrong before in ways that hurt real people. But Justice Jackson's dissent shows this reasoning has limits that remain unclear.

For everyday citizens, the bottom line is this: the Court has made it harder for states to protect minors from conversion therapy through licensing laws, at least when those laws single out one viewpoint while allowing another. Whether states can regulate the practice in other ways remains an open question.

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

The Supreme Court just settled a question that affects thousands of people on probation every year: if you disappear while under court supervision, can the government simply extend your probation term to punish you for the time you were gone? The answer, in an 8-1 decision, is no. The ruling protects defendants from a legal trap where they could be punished for breaking probation rules during a period the government claims they were not actually on probation.

The Case: A Woman Who Vanished

Isabel Rico was supposed to finish her three-and-a-half-year probation in June 2021. But in early 2018, she disappeared without telling her probation officer where she was going. When authorities finally caught her in January 2023, nearly five years later, she had committed a drug offense in 2022. The question was simple but consequential: did that 2022 crime count as a probation violation, even though her probation should have ended a year earlier?

Lower courts said yes. They ruled that Rico's disappearance had paused her probation clock, keeping her legally bound by its terms the entire time she was gone. That meant her drug offense counted as a serious violation, which dramatically increased her recommended prison sentence. The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the decision.

Why This Matters

This case reveals a fundamental contradiction in how the government was treating probation. The government wanted it both ways: it claimed Rico was not actually serving probation while she was on the run, yet insisted she could still be punished for breaking probation rules during that same period. As Rico's lawyer pointed out, you cannot violate the terms of something you are not legally subject to. That logical impossibility is what ultimately doomed the government's argument.

The ruling also matters because it shows how courts interpret laws. When Congress created the modern probation system in 1984, it included specific rules for extending probation, specific rules for what happens when someone disappears, and specific rules for tolling time served. The fact that Congress said nothing about automatically extending probation when someone absconds suggested Congress deliberately chose not to allow it.

What the Court Decided

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for eight justices, focused on the actual language of the law. He noted that federal law specifies exactly when probation begins, sets maximum lengths for it, and gives courts specific tools to handle people who disappear, including revoking probation and sending them back to prison. But nowhere does the law say probation automatically extends when someone runs.

The Court rejected every argument the government made. The government compared the situation to old rules about escaped prisoners, but the Court noted that those rules applied to actual imprisonment, not probation. The government warned that without this power, courts might be helpless if a probation officer fails to catch someone before their term expires. The Court's response was direct: if there are gaps in the law, Congress should fix them, not the courts.

The Lone Dissent

Justice Samuel Alito disagreed, but his objection was narrow. He argued that even if the 2022 drug offense did not count as a probation violation, the judge could still consider it when deciding Rico's sentence anyway. Federal judges have broad power to weigh factors like public safety and deterrence, and those factors do not disappear just because probation has ended. Alito also noted that sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, so the judge had flexibility regardless.

What Happens When Someone Runs From Probation

If you or someone you know is on probation, this ruling protects you from a legal trap. It means the government cannot simply freeze your probation clock while you are on the run and then punish you for crimes committed during that frozen period. Your probation term still has a real endpoint.

That said, judges still have significant power. They can consider crimes you commit after probation ends when they decide your sentence. The difference is technical but real: the judge is not starting from a higher recommended range based on a probation violation. The practical effect on your actual sentence could be the same, but the legal path to get there is different. And if you disappear, the government can still revoke your probation and send you back to prison for the original offense.

The Court's message was ultimately about honest language and clear rules. Probation either applies to you or it does not. You cannot be simultaneously off probation and bound by its conditions. That clarity protects everyone involved in the criminal justice system.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

The Supreme Court took a close look at a part of Medicaid that says patients can see any approved doctor. But the justices said that nothing in the law clearly lets individual patients sue state officials if they don’t follow that rule.

Instead, the court reminded us that Medicaid works like a deal: states get federal money, and if they break the rules, the government can pull funding. That means people on Medicaid can’t bring private lawsuits when states limit which doctors they can see.

Justice Gorsuch wrote for a six-justice majority. They sent the case back to lower courts to figure out what comes next. Meanwhile, three justices, led by Justice Jackson, said they’d let patients have their day in court.

Summary of the Case

In July 2018, South Carolina excluded Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (PPSAT) from its Medicaid program, citing a state ban on public funding for facilities that perform abortions. PPSAT and patient Julie Edwards sued state health officials, alleging that the State's action violated the Medicaid Act's "free-choice-of-provider" mandate, which requires that Medicaid beneficiaries "may obtain" services "from any qualified" provider. The district court ruled in favor of PPSAT, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. After a subsequent Supreme Court decision in a related case, the Fourth Circuit reaffirmed its judgment. The Supreme Court then considered whether the Medicaid provision clearly gives individuals an enforceable right to choose their providers.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Gorsuch, writing for a six-justice majority, held that the Medicaid provision does not clearly and unambiguously give individuals rights they can enforce through lawsuits. The Court emphasized that programs like Medicaid function like contracts between the federal government and states. When states don't comply with requirements, the typical remedy is cutting off federal funding, not individual lawsuits.

The Court found that the Medicaid provision is written as a requirement for state plans addressing overall compliance, not as language creating individual rights. Additionally, since states maintain control over provider qualifications, this undermines the interpretation that individuals have an absolute right to choose any provider. The Court concluded that funding termination, administrative appeals, and state judicial review remain the principal enforcement mechanisms, not individual lawsuits.

Separate Opinions

Justice Thomas agreed with the majority but wrote separately to question the Court's broader approach to these types of cases. He argued that spending programs like Medicaid, which operate as contracts between the federal government and states, fundamentally cannot create individual rights that people can enforce through lawsuits. He also suggested that the Court should reconsider its entire framework for determining when individuals can sue to enforce rights under federal programs.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented. She argued that the Medicaid provision clearly gives beneficiaries a right to choose their providers for three main reasons: (1) its text focuses on individuals—"any individual may obtain from any qualified provider"; (2) it uses mandatory language under a heading about "Free Choice by Individuals"; and (3) Congress knew how to create private enforcement rights and did so here. Jackson also pointed to previous Court decisions that described the provision as conferring a "right" and to later amendments that she believed confirmed Congress's intent to create enforceable rights.

Can Medicaid Patients Sue When States Limit Their Provider Choices?

The case hinges on how courts should interpret laws passed under Congress's spending power. Medicaid operates as a partnership: states receive federal funds if they follow certain rules, including the requirement that patients can choose any qualified provider. The majority viewed this as primarily a deal between governments, with the federal government's ability to withhold funding as the main enforcement mechanism.

For a provision to create rights that individuals can enforce through lawsuits, the Court requires "clear and unambiguous" evidence that Congress intended this result. The majority found that the Medicaid provision lacks the explicit "rights-creating language" found in other laws where Congress clearly intended to create individual rights. Instead, it appears in a list of requirements for state plans and focuses on state duties rather than individual entitlements.

The majority also emphasized that states maintain control over determining which providers are "qualified," which they saw as incompatible with an absolute individual right. They concluded that Congress intended enforcement through funding termination, administrative reviews, and state courts—not through individual lawsuits in federal court.

The dissent countered that the provision's focus on what "any individual may obtain" clearly creates individual rights, especially when compared to other provisions where Congress has recognized similar rights.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

The Court’s decision turns on the idea that rules must be applied evenly. In this case, the city had a rule that street performers needed a permit. But it turned out that some acts got fast-tracked permits while others were put on a waiting list. The Supreme Court said that kind of unequal treatment raises a red flag under the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, explained that the government cannot pick and choose who it favors without a good reason. If your dance team waits months for a permit while someone else walks right up and gets theirs in days, that’s not fair or lawful. The Court sent the case back to a lower court to make sure the city fixes its process and treats every performer the same way.

Summary of the Case

In 1999 Karyn Stanley began serving as a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida, under a policy that funded retiree health insurance through age sixty-five for both 25-year career retirees and those retiring early on disability. In 2003 the City revised its plan to preserve the age-65 subsidy only for 25-year retirees, limiting disability retirees to 24 months of coverage. Stanley, forced to retire on disability in 2018, sued under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that this disparate treatment violated the law. The district court dismissed her ADA claim because it held that the law only protects "qualified individuals"—those who hold or seek employment—and Stanley was neither once she had retired. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to resolve disagreement among circuit courts over whether Title I's protections extend to retirees who no longer hold or desire a job.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Gorsuch, writing for the Court, concluded that Title I prohibits discrimination only against a "qualified individual"—someone who "holds or desires" an employment position and "can perform the essential functions of the employment position with or without reasonable accommodation." The use of present-tense verbs and the statute's examples of "reasonable accommodation" (like job restructuring and facility modifications) all presume an ongoing employment relationship. By contrast, a retiree who no longer holds or seeks a job is not a "qualified individual" and thus cannot sue for discrimination in post-employment benefits. Gorsuch rejected Stanley's arguments, emphasizing that Congress could amend Title I if it wished to extend protection to retirees. Because Stanley fell outside the law's coverage, the Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's judgment.

Separate Opinions

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Barrett, concurred in part and in the judgment. He stressed that the Court should not have entertained, at the merits stage, Stanley's alternative theory—namely, that she suffered discriminatory treatment while still employed—which the Eleventh Circuit deemed forfeited. He urged deference to lower-court rules about which arguments can be considered preserved and the Court's own practice of reviewing only the questions presented.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor for most of her opinion, dissented. She argued that Title I plainly forbids disability discrimination "in regard to employee compensation," and that retirement benefits are deferred compensation earned on the job. A unilateral reduction in those benefits, targeted at disability retirees, thus "discriminates against a qualified individual" who earned them while employed. Jackson would read the qualified-individual definition contextually—rather than as a rigid temporal bar—so as to cover post-employment actions affecting benefits that were earned in an employment relationship.

Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joining Justice Jackson's view that Title I reaches discriminatory changes to retiree health insurance earned on the job.

When ADA Protection Ends: The Debate Over Retiree Rights

The heart of this case revolves around when ADA protection stops. The law prohibits employers from discriminating "against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to compensation," and defines "qualified individual" as one "who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires."

The majority reads the statute's present-tense verbs ("holds," "desires," "can perform") and its examples of accommodation (job restructuring, modifying facilities, adjusting training materials) as inherently directed to current employees or applicants, not to retirees who hold no position. Thus, the majority concludes, the ADA does not protect against discrimination in post-retirement benefits.

In dissent, Justices Jackson and Sotomayor emphasize that retirement benefits are "deferred compensation" for service already rendered. They argue that reducing those benefits specifically for disability retirees inherently "discriminates against a qualified individual," contending that nothing in the law signals an intent to withdraw ADA protection the moment one leaves the workforce.

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.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

Sometimes, the law comes down to the smallest details — like the exact timing of when someone is called to serve. In the case of Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, the Supreme Court looked at whether federal civilian employees who are also reservists should get extra pay when they’re called to active duty during a national emergency. The question was: does their service have to be directly tied to the specific emergency, or is it enough that their service just happens to overlap with a declared national emergency?

The Court decided that if a federal employee is called up under any law during a national emergency, they’re entitled to that extra pay, even if their service isn’t directly connected to the emergency itself. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, and he was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, as well as Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. There was a dissent, led by Justice Thomas and joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson. This case is a reminder of how the wording of a law, and the timing of events, can make a big difference in people's lives.

Summary of the Case

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation (No. 23–861) concerns the interpretation of federal statutes governing "differential pay" for federal civilian employees who are also military reservists. When reservists are called to active duty, they often earn less than in their civilian roles. Congress enacted a statute (5 U.S.C. §5538(a)) requiring the government to pay the difference in certain circumstances, including when reservists are called to active duty "during a national emergency." The dispute arose over whether this language entitles a reservist to differential pay simply because their service coincides with a declared national emergency, or whether there must be a substantive connection between the reservist’s service and the specific emergency. Nick Feliciano, a federal air traffic controller and Coast Guard reservist, was denied differential pay for his active duty service under 10 U.S.C. §12301(d) during a period of declared national emergency. After the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Circuit denied his claim—holding that a substantive connection was required—Feliciano sought Supreme Court review.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, held that a federal civilian employee called to active duty under "any other provision of law... during a national emergency" is entitled to differential pay if their service temporally coincides with a declared national emergency, without needing to prove a substantive connection to a particular emergency. The Court emphasized the ordinary meaning of "during," which denotes a temporal, not substantive, link. The majority found that when Congress intends to require both temporal and substantive connections, it does so explicitly (e.g., "during and in relation to"). The Court also noted that requiring a substantive connection would create interpretive difficulties, as the statute provides no guidance on what such a connection would entail. The Court rejected arguments that a temporal-only reading would render the statute meaningless, pointing out that Congress sometimes uses temporal conditions even if they are often satisfied. The judgment of the Federal Circuit was reversed and remanded (Slip Op. at 4–16).

Separate Opinions

No separate concurring opinions were issued. All justices in the majority joined Justice Gorsuch’s opinion.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson, dissented. The dissent argued that the statutory context and the ordinary meaning of "contingency operation" require a substantive connection between the reservist’s service and the national emergency. Justice Thomas emphasized that the term "contingency operation" in military parlance refers to operations responding to specific exigencies, not all military activity during a national emergency. He warned that the majority’s reading would render much of the statutory language superfluous, as national emergencies are almost always ongoing, and would have unintended consequences for other statutes that use the same definition. The dissent also pointed to legislative history and subsequent amendments as evidence that Congress intended a narrower reading (Thomas, J., dissenting, Slip Op. at 4–17).

Temporal and/or Substantive Connections

The legal nuance in this case centers on statutory interpretation, particularly the meaning of "during a national emergency" in 10 U.S.C. §101(a)(13)(B) as incorporated by 5 U.S.C. §5538(a). The majority applied a textualist approach, focusing on the ordinary, dictionary meaning of "during" as temporal, and found no evidence that Congress intended a specialized or substantive meaning. The Court contrasted this with other statutes where Congress explicitly requires a substantive connection (e.g., "during and in relation to"). The dissent, by contrast, relied on the context of the statutory scheme, the military’s use of "contingency operation," and the structure of the statute, arguing that the catchall provision should be read in harmony with the more specific enumerated provisions and the overall purpose of the law. The case thus illustrates the tension between plain meaning and contextual or purposive statutory interpretation, as well as the challenges of applying general statutory language to complex, real-world situations involving overlapping legal regimes and administrative practice.

Listen to this episode on Spotify

Trump's immigration policies are in the Supreme Court once again in the case of Velazquez v. Bondi. The case questions deadlines! The justices had to decide what happens when a deadline for voluntary departure falls on a weekend or a holiday. The Court ruled that if the deadline lands on one of those days, it actually extends to the next business day.

This decision overturned a previous ruling from the Tenth Circuit, which had treated the deadline as a strict calendar day. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, and he was joined by Justices Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. On the other side, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett disagreed, with Kavanaugh joining parts of their dissent.

This ruling is important because it clarifies how deadlines are interpreted in immigration cases, ensuring that individuals have a fair chance to respond, especially when those deadlines coincide with weekends or holidays. The Court's decision means that people won't be unfairly penalized for timing that is out of their control.

Summary of the Case

The case of Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi arose from the federal government's initiation of removal proceedings against Monsalvo, who sought to suspend these efforts or to leave the United States voluntarily. An immigration judge found him removable but granted him a 60-day period for voluntary departure. After the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected his appeal, it granted him a new 60-day period, which ended on a Saturday. Monsalvo filed a motion to reopen his case on the following Monday, which the BIA rejected as untimely, asserting that the deadline had expired on Saturday. The Tenth Circuit upheld the BIA's decision, leading to the Supreme Court's review of the interpretation of the statutory deadline under 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2).

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, held that the Tenth Circuit erred in interpreting the voluntary departure deadline as strictly referring to calendar days without extending to the next business day when the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday. The Court reasoned that the term "days" in legal contexts often carries a specialized meaning that allows for such extensions. The Court emphasized that Congress enacted §1229c(b)(2) against a backdrop of longstanding administrative practices that recognized this interpretation. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's ruling, allowing for the possibility that Monsalvo's motion to reopen was timely filed.

Separate Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh joined the dissenting opinions of Justices Thomas and Alito, which focused on jurisdictional issues rather than the merits of the case. Justice Barrett also dissented, agreeing with Justice Thomas on jurisdiction but providing a different rationale. She argued that Monsalvo did not challenge any aspect of the final order of removal, thus the Tenth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear his case.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, dissented on the grounds that the Court should have remanded the case to the Tenth Circuit to address a jurisdictional objection raised by the government. He contended that Monsalvo's petition did not seek judicial review of a final order of removal, as he did not contest his removability. Justice Alito's dissent emphasized that the ordinary meaning of "days" should apply, arguing that the statutory deadline was clear and that extending it would create inconsistencies. Justice Barrett's dissent focused on the lack of a challenge to the final order of removal, asserting that the Tenth Circuit lacked jurisdiction regardless of how broadly one interprets the final order.

Scrutinizing "Days" As a Legal Term

The case highlights the complexities of statutory interpretation within immigration law, particularly regarding deadlines. The Court's decision underscores the principle that statutory terms can carry specialized meanings in legal contexts, which may differ from their ordinary usage. The ruling also illustrates the importance of administrative practices and historical context in interpreting legislative provisions. The dissenting opinions raise critical questions about jurisdiction and the scope of judicial review under the Immigration and Nationality Act, emphasizing the need for clarity in how courts interpret "final orders of removal" and the implications of procedural deadlines. The case ultimately reflects the tension between strict statutory interpretation and the need for flexibility in legal proceedings, particularly in immigration contexts where individuals face significant consequences.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

Here’s a twist on how our high court sees a gun law. In Bondi v. Vanderstok, the justices looked at a rule from the agency that enforces our gun laws. They said that some kits you can buy, which come with every piece needed to build a gun, act like real weapons because you can put them together quickly and they’ll fire a bullet. They also ruled that half-finished gun bodies count, if only a bit more work is needed to make them fire. By a 7-to-2 vote, the court reversed a lower court decision that had tossed out this rule.

Summary of the Case

In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) adopted a rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) to cover (1) “weapon parts kits … that may readily be completed … to expel a projectile” and (2) “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” frames or receivers, including “frame or receiver parts kits”. Before ATF could enforce the rule, manufacturers and hobbyists filed pre-enforcement APA challenges, contending that (a) no kit can qualify as a “weapon” under § 921(a)(3)(A), and (b) unfinished frames/receivers fall outside § 921(a)(3)(B). The District Court and, on appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed and vacated the rule in its entirety. The Government sought certiorari, warning that the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation would eviscerate the GCA’s core provisions and leave regulators unable to trace an exploding rise in “ghost guns.” This Court granted review.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Gorsuch, for seven Justices, held that ATF’s rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA. On subsection (A), he explained that “artifact nouns” like “weapon” can embrace unfinished items whose intended function is plain. Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” kit—containing all the parts needed to build a semiautomatic pistol in about 20 minutes with common tools—plainly qualifies as a “weapon … readily … converted to expel a projectile.” On subsection (B), he held that “frame” and “receiver” may cover partially complete items. Decades of ATF practice, the GCA’s serialization requirements in § 923(i) for incomplete silencers and destructive devices, and the absence of any dispute about pre-rule enforcement all confirm that some unfinished frames/receivers fall squarely within the statute. The Court rejected litigants’ linguistic-difference arguments, NFA-machinegun fears, and invoked neither the rule of lenity nor avoidance because “text, context, and structure” unambiguously authorize regulation of at least some kits and partial frames. The Fifth Circuit’s judgment was reversed and remanded.

Separate Opinions

Justice Sotomayor (joined by Kagan and Barrett) wrote to emphasize that regulated parties have long known they must comply with the GCA’s licensing, recordkeeping, and serialization requirements and that ATF itself encourages submission of products for classification to avoid confusion.
Justice Kavanaugh concurred to note that ATF must prove “willfulness” to impose criminal penalties under § 924(a)(1)(D), and that background-check violations under § 924(a)(5) require knowledge of the facts constituting the offense—thus guarding against unfair prosecutions.
Justice Jackson concurred to stress that the sole judicial task is to determine whether Congress authorized ATF’s rulemaking under § 926(a), not to rewrite the statute.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Thomas dissented on text-and-structure grounds. He argued that “frame” and “receiver” in § 921(a)(3)(B) cannot reasonably cover unfinished or nonfunctional components, and that “weapon” in subsection (A) excludes kits that lack a finished frame or receiver. He warned that the majority’s approach could enable ATF to classify semiautomatic AR-15 receivers as machinegun receivers under the NFA.
Justice Alito dissented on review-standard grounds. He challenged the Court’s use of the “facial challenge” test: “No set of circumstances” under which the rule is valid. He argued that respondents never conceded to that demanding standard.

Boundaries of the Gun Control Act

The GCA’s expansive definition of “firearm” in § 921(a)(3) unfolds in four parts:

A. “any weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile”; B. “the frame or receiver of any such weapon”; C. “any firearm muffler or firearm silencer”; D. “any destructive device.”

Congress omitted “readily … converted” from part (B), signaling that only items already fitting the ordinary meaning of “frame or receiver” qualify—unlike subsections (A), (C), and (D), which expressly reach incomplete or convertible devices. But interpretation must also heed § 923(i)’s serialization mandates for incomplete silencers and destructive devices, ATF’s consistent pre-rule practice of regulating certain unfinished frames/receivers, and ordinary principles of consistent usage across a single statutory scheme. The majority holds that these structural and historical cues authorize regulation of kits and partial components at the outer boundary of the GCA’s reach—while leaving for another day the precise line between regulated and unregulated items.

Removal of persons camping on public property does not violate our Eighth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's ruling in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson decides that enforcing laws about camping on public property does not meet the standard of cruel and unusual punishment. This decision overturned a previous ruling frmo the Ninth Circuit that had prevented the city from enforcing its camping laws against homeless individuals when there weren't enough shelter beds available.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by several other justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. However, there was a dissenting opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, supported by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

This case highlights the ongoing debate about how cities can manage public spaces and the rights of homeless individuals. It raises questions about the balance between enforcing laws and ensuring that people have access to basic needs like shelter. As communities continue to grapple with these issues, this ruling will likely have a significant impact on how public camping laws are applied across the country.

Summary of the Case

The case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson arose from a class action lawsuit filed by homeless individuals against the city of Grants Pass, Oregon. The plaintiffs contended that the city's public-camping ordinances, which prohibited camping on public property, violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This legal challenge was influenced by a prior Ninth Circuit ruling in Martin v. Boise, which held that cities could not enforce such ordinances against homeless individuals when the number of homeless exceeded the available shelter beds. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs, issuing an injunction against the enforcement of the ordinances, which was subsequently affirmed by a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Gorsuch, reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The Court held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is focused on the methods of punishment imposed after a criminal conviction, rather than on the question of whether a government may criminalize specific behaviors. The Court reasoned that the punishments imposed by Grants Pass—such as fines and temporary exclusion from public parks—do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment as they are not designed to inflict terror, pain, or disgrace. The Court distinguished the case from Robinson v. California, asserting that the public-camping ordinances do not criminalize mere status (homelessness) but rather actions (camping) that any individual, regardless of their housing status, could engage in. The Court emphasized that local governments must have the authority to regulate public spaces and that the complexities of homelessness should be addressed through democratic processes rather than judicial mandates.

Separate Opinions

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the Court's conclusion but also criticizing the precedent set by Robinson v. California. He argued that the decision in Robinson was wrongly decided and that the Eighth Amendment should not extend to prohibiting the criminalization of status.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented. The dissent argued that the ordinances effectively criminalize homelessness by punishing individuals for sleeping in public when they have no alternative shelter. Sotomayor contended that this punishment is inherently cruel and unusual, as it penalizes a biological necessity—sleeping—when individuals lack access to shelter. The dissent emphasized the need to balance the rights of homeless individuals with the responsibilities of local governments, asserting that the majority's ruling fails to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

Camping, Homelessness and the Eighth Amendment

The legal nuance in this case revolves around the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. The majority opinion clarified that this clause is primarily concerned with the nature of punishments following a criminal conviction, rather than the legitimacy of criminalizing certain behaviors. The Court distinguished between punishing a status (such as homelessness) and punishing actions that any individual might undertake. This distinction is critical, as it underscores the Court's view that local governments retain broad authority to regulate public behavior, including the enforcement of laws against public camping. The dissent, however, highlighted the potential for these laws to disproportionately affect homeless individuals, raising concerns about the moral implications of criminalizing basic survival actions. The case illustrates the ongoing tension between public safety regulations and the rights of marginalized populations, particularly in the context of homelessness.

---

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

In a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, and its "Good Neighbor Plan" the Supreme Court highlights the delicate balance of environmental regulations and the authority of federal agencies. The Court decided to pause the enforcement of this plan while lower courts review the matter.

The majority of justices, led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, expressed concerns that the EPA might not have provided a clear enough explanation for its actions. Specifically, they questioned how effective the emissions-control measures could be if fewer states were participating than initially intended. This raises important questions about how environmental policies are crafted and the reasoning behind them.

On the other side, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and three other justices disagreed with the majority's decision. This split shows that even among the highest court in the land, there are differing opinions on how to approach environmental regulations and the role of federal agencies.

As this case unfolds, it will be interesting to see how the lower courts interpret the EPA's actions and what this means for future environmental policies.

Summary of the Case

The case of Ohio et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. arose from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to disapprove over 20 State Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to the regulation of ozone pollution under the Clean Air Act. The EPA proposed a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to replace the disapproved SIPs, which was challenged by several states and industry groups. They argued that the EPA's decision to enforce the FIP was arbitrary and capricious, particularly because it was based on the assumption that all states would comply with the emissions-reduction measures, which was not the case due to ongoing litigation regarding the SIPs. The applicants sought a stay of the FIP's enforcement while their appeal was pending.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Gorsuch, granted the applications for a stay of the EPA's FIP. The Court determined that the applicants were likely to succeed on their claim that the EPA's actions were arbitrary or capricious. The Court emphasized that an agency's action is deemed arbitrary if it lacks a reasonable explanation or fails to consider an important aspect of the problem. The Court found that the EPA had not adequately addressed concerns raised during the public comment period regarding the implications of applying the FIP to a reduced number of states. The Court concluded that the severability provision added by the EPA did not sufficiently address the commenters' concerns about the potential shift in cost-effectiveness of emissions-control measures if fewer states were included in the FIP. Thus, the enforcement of the FIP was stayed pending further review.

Separate Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion but also wrote a concurring opinion emphasizing the weighty equities involved in stay requests, particularly when states and industries seek to stay federal regulations.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Barrett, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, dissented. The dissent argued that the majority's reasoning was underdeveloped and unlikely to succeed on the merits. Justice Barrett contended that the EPA had a statutory obligation to ensure compliance with air quality standards and that the SIP disapprovals were valid. The dissent criticized the majority for not fully engaging with the record and for suggesting that the EPA's failure to explain its reasoning constituted a sufficient basis for a stay. Barrett maintained that the FIP's methodology did not depend on the number of states covered and that the EPA's actions were reasonable given the statutory deadlines.

SIPs, FIPs and the EPA

The Clean Air Act establishes a framework for regulating air quality through collaboration between states and the federal government. States are primarily responsible for developing SIPs to meet federal air quality standards, but the EPA can impose a FIP if a state fails to submit an adequate SIP. The "Good Neighbor Provision" requires states to prevent emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment in neighboring states. The Court's decision highlights the importance of reasoned agency action and the need for agencies to adequately address public comments during the rulemaking process. The nuances of the law also reflect the balance of state and federal authority in environmental regulation, particularly in the context of interstate pollution and the complexities of air quality management. The dissent underscores the procedural barriers and the stringent standards for judicial review of agency actions, emphasizing the need for courts to exercise caution in intervening in technical regulatory matters.

---

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM