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

The Supreme Court just reversed a lower court's decision to throw out evidence from a police stop, but the case reveals a fundamental tension in how America's courts decide when officers can legally pull someone over. The question sounds simple: did police have enough reason to stop a teenager driving a car at 2 a.m.? But the answer exposes a real disagreement about how judges should evaluate suspicious behavior, and whether the Supreme Court should even be involved in cases like this one.

What Happened That Night

Around 2 a.m., Officer Vanterpool responded to a radio dispatch about a suspicious vehicle. When he arrived, two passengers bolted from the car, leaving a door open. The driver, a teenager named R.W., started backing up without closing the door. The officer blocked the car, drew his weapon, and ordered R.W. to show his hands. Police later charged R.W. with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and receiving stolen property. The charge was based on evidence from that stop.

The core question was straightforward: did the officer have enough legitimate reason to stop R.W. in the first place? The lower court said no. The Supreme Court said yes, and it did so without even holding a hearing. The Court signaled that the answer was obvious by skipping their regular procedure of hearing oral arguments.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court ruled that Officer Vanterpool clearly had grounds to stop R.W. Judges must look at the whole situation, not pick apart individual facts one by one. Think of it like a mosaic. A single tile might look meaningless, but tiles arranged together create a clear picture.

The Court found that R.W.'s companions running away was significant. So was R.W.'s own behavior: backing up with a door hanging open while his friends fled suggested he knew something was wrong. Together, these facts plus the radio dispatch gave the officer reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. That's the legal standard police need before stopping someone.

A Serious Disagreement

Justice Jackson dissented, but not to defend R.W.'s rights directly. Instead, she questioned whether the Supreme Court should have taken the case at all. She argued the lower court had done its job correctly: it carefully examined each fact before weighing them together. That's not the same as ignoring the full picture, she wrote.

Jackson also pointed out that every court, including the Supreme Court in this very opinion, decides which facts matter and which don't. The real question is whether the lower court made a clear error. She suggested it didn't. If the only correction needed was giving more weight to the companions running away, that wasn't significant enough to justify the Supreme Court stepping in without a hearing.

Justice Sotomayor noted she would have declined to hear the case entirely, signaling concern about whether this was the right kind of case for the nation's highest court to decide.

Big Questions About Police Power

Police need reasonable suspicion before they can stop someone. That's a lower bar than probable cause, which is what they need to make an arrest. Reasonable suspicion means an officer has a specific, objective, reason to suspect criminal activity. This reason must be based on the full circumstances, not just a gut feeling.

But here's the tension Jackson identified: how do you evaluate the full picture without examining each fact individually? Any judge writing a decision has to discuss facts one at a time and decide which matter. The difference between doing that fairly and improperly ignoring certain facts isn't always clear.

There's also a bigger question about the Supreme Court's role. The justices are supposed to reverse lower courts without full hearings only when the error is obvious. Whether a disagreement about what a teenager's behavior meant at 2 a.m. truly qualifies is debatable. Jackson's dissent is essentially a call for restraint; not every close judgment call needs the Supreme Court to weigh in.

This case shows how courts balance the competing concerns of protecting people from unreasonable police stops while giving officers enough flexibility to investigate genuine threats. The Supreme Court sided with police power here. But Justice Jackson's dissent reminds us that reasonable people can disagree about what suspicious behavior actually means, and that the Supreme Court doesn't need to settle every disagreement among lower courts.

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

A Vermont police sergeant used a painful arm-twisting technique to force a peaceful protester off the floor during a sit-in. She sued. The Supreme Court just said he cannot be held personally responsible. The decision highlights a growing tension on the Court: how much protection should police officers get from lawsuits, and at what cost to people injured by their actions?

What Happened

During a sit-in at the Vermont state capitol, Sergeant Jacob Zorn used a rear wristlock. It's a technique that bends the arm to cause pain and force compliance. Sergeant Zorn used it to lift protester Shela Linton off the floor. Linton was not fighting back or being aggressive. She was simply refusing to move.

Linton sued Zorn personally for violating her constitutional rights. The case hinged on a legal shield called qualified immunity. This doctrine protects government officials from personal lawsuits unless they violated a right that was already clearly established by prior court decisions. The question was simple: at the time Zorn acted, was it already obvious from existing court rulings that what he did was unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court said no. Because the law was not clearly established, Zorn was protected.

The Court's Reasoning

The unsigned majority opinion focused on whether an earlier case called Amnesty America v. West Hartford was specific enough to warn Zorn that his actions were illegal. The Court said it was not, for three reasons.

First, Amnesty America involved much more aggressive conduct. Officers were ramming protesters' heads and throwing them. Second, that case never actually ruled officers violated the law. It sent the case to a jury to decide. Third, Amnesty America itself referenced another case that actually approved of officers warning protesters and then using wristlocks to move them.

The Court emphasized that Zorn gave repeated warnings before using the wristlock. Because of these differences, the majority concluded Zorn could not have known his conduct was clearly illegal.

The Dissent's Objection

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, disagreed sharply. She argued the majority got the facts wrong. According to the record, Zorn did not warn Linton before grabbing her arm. He only asked her to stand after he had already started twisting it.

Sotomayor also said the majority misread Amnesty America. That case did discuss rear wristlocks on passive protesters as a practice that could amount to excessive force. That should have been enough to put Zorn on notice, she argued.

More broadly, Sotomayor raised an alarm about a pattern she sees on the current Court: it quickly steps in to protect officers from lawsuits but rarely intervenes when courts wrongly let officers off the hook. This imbalance, she warned, is turning qualified immunity into something closer to absolute protection from accountability.

When Cops Can Be Held Accountable

The tension in this case reflects a real problem in how courts handle police lawsuits. The Fourth Amendment requires courts to weigh the full picture when deciding if force was reasonable. How serious was the situation? Was the person a threat? Were they resisting? That is flexible, case-by-case analysis.

Qualified immunity asks something much narrower. Was it already beyond debate, based on prior rulings, that this exact conduct was unconstitutional? The higher that bar, the harder it becomes to win a lawsuit against an officer.

Here is the practical problem: no two situations are exactly alike. If a prior case involving wristlocks on passive protesters alongside head-ramming is not specific enough to clearly establish that wristlocks alone are unconstitutional, then every slightly different scenario essentially needs its own court ruling before an officer can be held liable. That means the body of clearly established law can almost never grow fast enough to keep up with real-world situations.

The core debate on the current Court is how qualified immunity protects officers making difficult decisions in the moment. Decisions shouldn't create an unworkable barrier that shields misconduct from accountability. Tension exists between giving officers immunity and keeping them accountable raising questions about where the line should be drawn. The answer you give depends on how you weigh those competing concerns. The Court's six-justice majority and three-justice dissent clearly weigh them very differently.

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

Tiny wording choices can change who gets a say, and when. That’s what this Supreme Court order is about: what schools can keep from parents, and what they must say out loud, when a student is transitioning at school. The Court said schools aren't able to keep information from parents about their child's gender transition and schools cannot override parental instructions on the name and pronoun to use with their child.

The Court said the parent plaintiffs are likely to win their claims tied to religious freedom and to parents’ rights under the Constitution. But the Court would not grant the same relief for the teacher plaintiffs.

The ruling was unsigned, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the result. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her.

Summary of the Case

It's one of those rare moments when the Supreme Court intervenes in the middle of an ongoing appeal, not after full briefing and oral argument, but through an emergency application to vacate a stay. Elizabeth Mirabelli and other California parents sued to challenge state education policies that, as administered, prevent schools from disclosing to parents information about their children's gender identity transitions at school and require schools to use students' preferred pronouns regardless of parental wishes. The District Court granted summary judgment for the parents and entered a permanent injunction. The Ninth Circuit stayed that injunction pending appeal. The parents then asked the Supreme Court to vacate the stay, and six Justices granted that request, but only as to the parents, not as to the teachers.

The case presented two constitutional theories. First, that the policies violate the Free Exercise Clause as applied to parents with sincere religious beliefs about gender. Second, that the policies violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding parents from consequential decisions about their children's mental health. This second theory becomes crucial because it applies to all objecting parents, not just those motivated by religion.

Arguments Made By Counsel

The official Supreme Court record provided here contains no oral argument summary. The Court resolved this application on an abbreviated schedule without live argument before the Justices, a procedural posture that Justice Kagan's dissent heavily criticizes. However, we can reconstruct the competing positions from the opinions themselves.

The parents' counsel emphasized two things. First, that California's policy operates as a blanket prohibition. School officials testified they cannot disclose information about gender transitions even when parents directly ask. Second, the plaintiffs' factual narratives are emotionally compelling. The Poe family's daughter attempted suicide. Her parents learned she had been presenting as a boy at school only from a hospital psychiatrist, not from school officials. Even after hospitalization, when the child moved schools, administrators continued withholding information and using the chosen identity against parental instruction.

The state's counsel, represented by California's Attorney General Rob Bonta, grounded its defense in student safety and privacy. The Ninth Circuit, which stayed the injunction, appeared sympathetic to this argument, suggesting that a blanket parental notification policy might expose vulnerable transgender students to abuse by unsupportive parents. The state also raised structural objections: the class certification was insufficiently rigorous, the injunction was overbroad, and some class members lacked standing because they weren't actually injured by the policy.

Opinion of the Court

The per curiam majority, six Justices, granted the application as to the parents only, meaning the injunction requiring parental disclosure and respect for parental directives on names and pronouns can take effect while the Ninth Circuit continues its appeal.

On the merits, and this is important, the Court did not finally decide these cases. It instead applied a test for emergency relief, which has four factors: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. A preliminary assessment suffices.

On the Free Exercise Claim, the majority reasoned that parents with sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender are likely to succeed. California's policies substantially interfere with the right of parents to guide the religious development of their children, according to the most recent precedent expanding free exercise protections. Importantly, the Court analogized that the intrusion here, unconsented facilitation of social gender transition, exceeds what it found sufficient in a recent case involving the mere presence of LGBTQ storybooks in curriculum. The state's compelling interests in student safety and privacy don't survive strict scrutiny because they cut out the primary protectors of children's best interests: their parents. Moreover, the Court noted that a narrower policy, allowing exemptions while still protecting children from abusive parents through enforcement of existing child abuse laws, would advance the state's interests with less burden on religious liberty.

On the Substantive Due Process Claim, here the Court invoked bedrock precedents establishing that parents, not the state, have primary authority over the upbringing and education of children. The Court drew a crucial distinction: gender dysphoria is a mental health condition, and prior precedent specifically protected parental participation in decisions about children's mental health. California's policy conceals this information from parents and facilitates social transition during school hours, thereby excluding parents from participation in a consequential mental health decision. This is likely unconstitutional.

On Irreparable Harm, the majority treated the denial of asserted constitutional rights during a protracted appellate process as irreparable by definition.

On Balance of Equities, the Court held that child safety actually favors the parents' position because fit parents advancing their judgment promotes wellbeing, while the state retains its ability to protect children from unfit parents through child welfare law and custody removal.

Separate Opinions

Justice Barrett's Concurrence, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, agrees with the result but adds a methodological clarification about substantive due process, a doctrine generating significant contemporary controversy on this Court.

Barrett emphasizes that substantive due process, while controversial, is not newly invented. It requires rights to be deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The parental right to direct children's upbringing, and specifically to participate in mental health decisions, has been part of constitutional law for a century. This is not judicial overreach. It's straightforward application of existing precedent.

Critically, Barrett addresses Justice Kagan's implicit concern. How can the Court recognize parental rights here when it eliminated abortion rights in Dobbs based on the identical framework? The concurrence replies that Dobbs didn't repudiate substantive due process doctrine generally. Rather, it applied the test to conclude that abortion specifically is not deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. That targeted elimination doesn't undermine the parental rights cases, which face no such challenge. No party disputes those precedents' continued validity.

Barrett also defends the Court's decision to accompany the stay vacation order with a substantive per curiam opinion rather than issuing a terse, reasoned judgment. In her view, the Ninth Circuit significantly misunderstood recent precedent, and brief correction serves efficiency. Moreover, because Justice Kagan raises the Dobbs tension, it would be unwise to issue an unreasoned order on the substantive due process claim.

Finally, she emphasizes that likely is the operative word. This is a preliminary merits assessment to inform the emergency relief question, not a conclusive resolution. The litigation continues in the Ninth Circuit and potentially here.

Justice Thomas and Justice Alito noted separately that they would grant the application in full, meaning they would vacate the stay as to the teachers as well. The per curiam denied relief for the teachers, perhaps on grounds that their claims differ from the parents' in doctrinally relevant ways.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented, mounting a structural critique of how the Court handled this case rather than disagreeing with the ultimate merits assessment.

Her core grievance: This is precisely the kind of novel, high stakes issue the emergency docket was never designed to resolve. The ordinary appellate process had barely begun. Only the district court had ruled on the merits. The Court received minimal briefing, held no oral argument, conducted no conference deliberation, and decided the matter in weeks. Yet it issued a per curiam opinion that, despite the word likely sprinkled throughout, will inevitably be read by lower courts, state officials, and the public as conclusively resolving the dispute.

Kagan notes several procedural irregularities. First, the Ninth Circuit's en banc process was already underway when the plaintiffs simultaneously filed a motion there and an application here. Sound practice would counsel waiting for the Ninth Circuit to complete its work before the Supreme Court jumps in. Second, and more galling to Kagan, a petition for certiorari raising essentially identical legal issues has been pending since November in a First Circuit case with the same policy structure. The Court could have granted it, heard full briefing, held oral arguments, deliberated properly, and issued a considered opinion come next fall. Instead, it chose the truncated emergency docket. Kagan notes approximately 40 cases raising similar due process and free exercise challenges to school policies are currently in the judicial pipeline, so the Court would not wait long if it did the work properly.

Critically, Kagan raises a tension the per curiam tries to finesse: the substantive due process problem. The Court derives its holding from parental rights rooted in substantive due process doctrine, yet this Court, particularly the majority coalition, has expressed deep skepticism toward substantive due process in recent years. Justice Thomas has called for overruling all substantive due process precedents. Justice Gorsuch criticized the judicial misuse of substantive due process. Justice Kavanaugh's Dobbs concurrence emphasized that the Constitution does not grant the nine unelected Members of this Court the unilateral authority to rewrite the Constitution.

The dissonance is stark. In Dobbs, the Court repudiated a woman's right to make consequential decisions about her own health, abortion, based on it not being deeply rooted in American tradition.

The Tension Between Parental Rights and Student Privacy

This case sits at the intersection of two deeply held values: the right of parents to be involved in their children's lives, and the interest in protecting vulnerable students who may not be safe at home. The Court sided with the parents, finding that California's blanket policy of withholding information about a child's gender transition likely violates both religious freedom and the constitutional right of parents to direct their children's upbringing. But the word "likely" is doing a lot of work here. This is preliminary relief, not a final answer.

The dissent's objection isn't really about who should win. It's about how the Court chose to decide. By resolving this on the emergency docket the majority issued what looks like a major constitutional ruling through a process designed for urgent but narrow interventions. With dozens of similar cases working through the courts, the question of whether schools can keep gender-transition information from parents was going to reach the Court eventually. The dissent says the Court should have let that process play out.

What makes this case hard is that both sides are trying to protect children. Parents argue they can't fulfill that role if schools are keeping secrets from them. The state argues that some children need protection from their own parents. The Court's answer, for now, is that fit parents are presumed to act in their children's best interests, and the state can use existing child welfare laws to handle the exceptions. The Ninth Circuit has a tenuous framework to consider their decision. Cases currently working their way through the court system now is signaling that the Supreme Court will have to further deliberate substantive due process again soon.

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

In this case, the hard part isn’t just what the Constitution requires. It’s how much room federal judges have to second-guess what state courts already decided. That’s the nuance here: even if you think a trial should have gone differently, federal law sets a high bar before a federal court can step in and order a new trial.

Klein v. Martin involves a state prisoner convicted of attempted murder. The dispute centers on a forensic computer report that was not turned over to the defense. The question is whether keeping that report back would have changed the outcome.

The Supreme Court, in a short ruling, said the Fourth Circuit went too far when it granted federal habeas relief. The Justices said the Fourth Circuit didn’t give enough deference to the Maryland state appellate court under AEDPA, the federal law that limits when federal courts can undo state convictions. The Supreme Court said a fair-minded judge could reasonably decide the missing report would not have changed the verdict, given the strength of the other evidence.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and said she would have denied the petition.

Understanding Federal Court Limits in State Criminal Cases

Charles Brandon Martin was convicted in a Maryland state court for his role in the attempted murder of his pregnant girlfriend, Jodi Torok. The prosecution built their case on several pieces of evidence. They had DNA evidence linking Martin to a modified Gatorade bottle found at the crime scene, which prosecutors claimed was a homemade silencer. Witnesses testified they saw Martin at the location where this device was built. The prosecution also presented evidence that Martin had a motive: he wanted Torok to end her pregnancy. Finally, text messages showed that Martin knew where Torok would be on the day of the shooting.

After his conviction, Martin challenged the verdict during state postconviction proceedings. He argued that prosecutors had violated his constitutional rights by hiding important evidence. Specifically, the prosecution never disclosed a forensic report about a laptop Martin owned. This report showed the laptop contained no searches for terms like "handgun" or "silencer." This mattered because a prosecution witness named Sheri Carter had testified that she saw Martin researching silencers on that very laptop.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed this claim and decided the hidden evidence was not important enough to have changed the verdict. They reasoned that even without Carter's testimony, plenty of other evidence pointed to Martin's guilt. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with Maryland's decision and granted Martin relief. The Fourth Circuit believed Maryland had applied the wrong legal test when evaluating whether the hidden evidence mattered.

The State of Maryland argued that the Fourth Circuit had failed to give proper respect to the state court's decision. Maryland contended that their appellate court had correctly applied the legal test for determining whether hidden evidence matters. They emphasized that substantial evidence connected Martin to the crime, even setting aside what Carter said about the laptop searches. Martin's side argued that the forensic report would have seriously damaged the prosecution's theory that the Gatorade bottle was a silencer. They believed this evidence could have cast the entire case in a different light and undermined confidence in the guilty verdict.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court issued what's called a per curiam opinion. This is a unanimous ruling that doesn't identify which justice wrote it. The Court summarily reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision.

The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit made two fundamental mistakes. First, the Fourth Circuit wrongly concluded that Maryland's appellate court had applied the wrong legal test. The Supreme Court emphasized that the state court had accurately summarized the relevant legal precedents, correctly stated the governing rule, and explicitly applied that rule to the facts of the case. The Fourth Circuit had criticized the state court's analysis for not being sufficiently detailed or for failing to discuss certain pieces of evidence. The Supreme Court said this criticism violated an important principle: federal courts cannot impose their own standards for how state courts should write their opinions.

Second, the Supreme Court found that the Fourth Circuit erred when it decided that no reasonable judge could agree with Maryland's conclusion. The Supreme Court pointed to the substantial evidence against Martin: his DNA on the bottle, eyewitness testimony from Michael Bradley about how the bottle was constructed, Martin's motive for wanting Torok harmed, his text message that established where Torok would be, his ownership of the right caliber weapon, and his suspicious behavior after the shooting. Even if the forensic report had completely destroyed Carter's credibility, a reasonable judge could still conclude that all this other evidence strongly supported the conviction.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Jackson noted that she would have denied the petition for review, but she provided no explanation for her position. This notation indicates disagreement with the Court's decision to hear the case at all, not necessarily disagreement about who should win. Justices sometimes take this position when they believe a case does not warrant the Supreme Court's attention, perhaps because it involves applying settled law to specific facts rather than resolving a disagreement between different courts or addressing a novel legal question.

Federal Court Review of State Convictions

This decision illustrates an important limitation on federal courts' power to overturn state court criminal convictions. Congress created this limitation through a law called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, or AEDPA.

The critical legal distinction involves two different tests that might sound similar but work quite differently. One test asks: "Is there enough evidence remaining to support a conviction?" This is called a sufficiency of the evidence test. The other test asks something more nuanced: "Would the undisclosed evidence have put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict?" This second test comes from a famous case called Brady v. Maryland, which established that prosecutors must share evidence that could help prove a defendant's innocence.

The Fourth Circuit believed Maryland's court had confused these two tests. The Fourth Circuit thought Maryland was claiming to apply the Brady test while actually just asking whether enough evidence remained for conviction. The Supreme Court disagreed and found that Maryland followed the Brady standard correctly.

But there's another layer of complexity here. AEDPA requires what courts call "doubly deferential" review. Under this law, federal courts cannot grant relief to a state prisoner merely because they would have decided the case differently. Instead, they must find that the state court's decision was contrary to clearly established federal law or involved an unreasonable application of that law. The Supreme Court has described this standard as protecting only against extreme failures in state court decision making. The test asks whether any reasonable judge could have reached the state court's conclusion, not whether the federal court agrees with that conclusion.

In practical terms, this means that even if the undisclosed forensic report might have changed the outcome of Martin's trial, federal habeas relief is unavailable unless no reasonable judge could conclude otherwise. The Supreme Court found plenty of room for reasonable disagreement in this case. Given the circumstantial but substantial evidence tying Martin to the modified bottle and the shooting, a reasonable judge could conclude that hiding the forensic report did not undermine confidence in the verdict.

This case reinforces that federal courts must give considerable deference to state court decisions, even when reviewing claims that constitutional rights were violated. The system tolerates significant disagreement among judges about the right outcome, as long as the state court's decision falls within the range of reasonable interpretations of federal law.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

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

The Supreme Court was ready to weigh in on whether a lawsuit for damages could include people who were never hurt alongside those who actually suffered harm, but then it decided not to decide. After agreeing to hear the case, the Justices dismissed it as improvidently granted and sent it back without ruling on the question. That means there’s still no clear answer on whether a class action can pack together injured and uninjured members under the federal rules. Justice Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with that move and wrote a dissent. He would have liked the Court to tackle the issue head-on. What this all means is that lower courts and companies are still left guessing about how to handle these mixed classes in big lawsuits.

Summary of the Case

LabCorp, a national diagnostic laboratory provider, installed touchscreen "e-check-in" kiosks in its California patient centers. Because these kiosks weren't accessible to blind or visually impaired patients, several legally blind individuals sued LabCorp. They claimed the company denied them "full and equal enjoyment" of services under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a statewide class action that could potentially seek damages up to $500 million per year. This class would include all legally blind patients who "due to their disability, were unable to use" the kiosks.

LabCorp challenged the class certification, arguing that the definition included people who weren't actually harmed - specifically, blind individuals who wouldn't have used the kiosks anyway due to personal preference or habit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the class to proceed, applying its precedent that permits classes that "potentially include more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members." LabCorp then asked the Supreme Court to review whether a damages class action can include both injured and uninjured members.

Opinion of the Court

In a brief per curiam (by the court) order, the Supreme Court dismissed the case as "improvidently granted," meaning they decided not to rule on the issue after all. The Court provided no analysis of either the procedural questions or the class certification issues, leaving the Ninth Circuit's judgment intact without addressing the merits.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh dissented from the dismissal. He argued that:

• The case should not have been dismissed on procedural grounds. He rejected the plaintiffs' argument that LabCorp appealed the wrong certification order, noting that the later "clarification" order didn't materially change the original certification.

• On the merits, Justice Kavanaugh believed that the federal rules governing class actions prohibit certifying a damages class that "includes both injured and uninjured members." He argued that a class of uninjured individuals cannot share a common injury, which conflicts with several previous Supreme Court decisions.

• Allowing overly broad class certifications forces defendants into settlements and ultimately imposes costs on consumers, retirees, and workers by inflating liability exposure. He would have reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision.

When Class Actions Can Include Potentially Uninjured Members

This case highlights a tension in class action law about who can be included in a lawsuit seeking damages. Three key legal frameworks are at play:

1. The ADA and California's Unruh Act both require businesses to provide "full and equal" access to people with disabilities. The Unruh Act allows for $4,000 in damages per violation, regardless of actual harm suffered.

2. Federal class action rules require that common questions "predominate" over individual ones before a damages class can proceed. This requirement aims to ensure class treatment is both convenient and fair.

3. Federal rules allow immediate appeals of class certification decisions because certifying large classes with potentially uninjured members can create enormous liability risks and pressure to settle regardless of the merits.

The Ninth Circuit's approach allows certification even when more than a small number of class members may lack any injury, as long as "some evidence of injury" exists for others. Justice Kavanaugh viewed this exception as incompatible with class action rules and Supreme Court precedents, which he believes require each class member to share a common injury.

This case reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing the need to address widespread discrimination through class actions while preventing overly broad certifications that might lead to unfair settlements or violate defendants' due process rights.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

The justices put a hold on the removal of several Venezuelan nationals linked to a group called Tren de Aragua. They ruled these detainees have to receive clear and timely notice so they can ask a court to review their status. The high court sent the case back down and told the lower courts to figure out exactly how much notice is fair and then to dive into the deeper challenges those detainees have raised. This isn’t a final decision on whether they’ll stay or go, but it does pause the process and forces the government to spell out the reasons against each person. What happens next could shape how far the government must go in giving notice to anyone it wants to remove under national security laws.

Summary of the Case

Two Venezuelan nationals were detained in Texas and identified as members of Tren de Aragua, a designated terrorist group. Using the Alien Enemies Act, the President issued an order for their immediate removal from the United States. The detainees sought emergency relief in court, arguing they were given only about 24 hours' notice with no real chance to consult lawyers or challenge their removal. When the trial court failed to rule for over 14 hours, they appealed to a higher court and also directly to the Supreme Court. The appeals court dismissed their case, claiming it lacked jurisdiction because the trial judge had been given only 42 minutes to act. The detainees then brought their case directly to the Supreme Court.

Opinion of the Court

In the court's decision, the Supreme Court granted temporary protection for the detainees, overturned the appeals court's judgment, and sent the case back for further proceedings. First, the Court ruled that the appeals court was wrong: higher courts do have authority to review cases when a lower court's inaction effectively denies emergency relief, which is what happened here.

Second, applying constitutional principles, the Court reaffirmed that "no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard." The Court emphasized that people detained under the Alien Enemies Act must receive notice that reasonably informs them about their removal and actually allows them to challenge it. Notice given roughly a day in advance, without information about legal counsel or procedures, clearly failed to meet constitutional requirements. The Court therefore blocked removals under the Alien Enemies Act while lower courts determine exactly what kind of notice is required, stressing that national security must be pursued in "a manner consistent with the Constitution."

Separate Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh agreed that temporary relief was warranted to preserve the courts' role, but he argued against sending the case back to lower courts. Instead, he urged the Supreme Court to fast-track the case and resolve two key questions now: whether the Alien Enemies Act authorizes removal of these particular detainees, and what legal process the Act requires.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, fully disagreed with the majority. He first argued the Court lacked jurisdiction: the trial court had been working diligently, the 42-minute deadline imposed by the detainees was unfair, and there was no effective denial of relief. Second, he maintained that the detainees failed to show they would likely win their case on its merits. Third, he criticized the Court for bypassing normal judicial procedures, stating: "we are a Court of review, not first view."

The Tension Between Ancient Laws and Modern Rights

At the heart of this case is the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798 that gives the President power to remove citizens of countries at war with the United States. The law itself is remarkably brief and says nothing about procedural protections. However, over more than a century, the Supreme Court has established fundamental due process limits on this executive power. Past cases have established that removal without "opportunity, at some time, to be heard" is unconstitutional, and that people facing removal must receive notice "reasonably calculated under all the circumstances" to inform them and give "a reasonable time" to respond. In a recent 2025 case, the Court unanimously confirmed that people detained under the Alien Enemies Act must receive adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge their detention before being summarily removed. Lower courts must now determine exactly what form and timing of legal process the Constitution requires before someone can be removed under this Act. This case highlights the ongoing tension between an old statutory power and evolving constitutional protections—showing how our legal system balances legislative authority with constitutional rights.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act and The Supreme Court decided to lift temporary orders that had stopped deportations. The case, Trump v. J.G.G., rules on the jurisdiction district. This ruling means that if someone wants to challenge their removal under this law, they must do so in the district where they are being held, which in this case is Texas.

The decision was made by a group of justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. They all agreed on this point, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced their disagreement, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett.

This case highlights the nuances of how legal challenges are handled, especially when it comes to immigration and detention. It emphasizes the importance of where and how these challenges can be made, shaping the landscape of legal rights for those affected.

Summary of the Case

The case of Trump v. J. G. G. arose from the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be affiliated with Tren de Aragua (TdA), a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and remove these individuals. In response, five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against their removal, arguing that they were not removable under the AEA. The District Court issued temporary restraining orders (TROs) to prevent their removal, which the government sought to vacate, leading to the Supreme Court's involvement.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, vacated the District Court's TROs, asserting that challenges to removal under the AEA must be brought through habeas corpus proceedings. The Court emphasized that the detainees' claims implied the invalidity of their confinement, thus falling within the "core" of habeas corpus. The Court ruled that venue for such claims lies in the district of confinement, which in this case is Texas, not the District of Columbia. The Court acknowledged that while judicial review is limited under the AEA, detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The Court's decision was framed as a means to avoid unnecessary delays in the legal process.

Separate Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh concurred with the Court's opinion, emphasizing that the use of habeas corpus for transfer claims is consistent with historical precedent. He noted that the Court's disagreement with the dissenters was not about the availability of judicial review but rather about the appropriate venue for such review.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented, arguing that the Court's decision undermined due process protections for the detainees. She criticized the majority for intervening hastily and for failing to consider the potential harm to individuals being deported without adequate legal recourse. Justice Jackson also dissented, expressing concern over the Court's rushed decision-making process and the implications of using a wartime statute in a peacetime context.

Appropriate Use of Habeas Corpus

The case highlights the complexities surrounding the Alien Enemies Act, a law originally enacted in 1798 for wartime scenarios. The majority opinion underscored that the AEA precludes judicial review in many instances, yet it also allows for judicial scrutiny regarding the interpretation and constitutionality of the Act. The Court's ruling that habeas corpus is the appropriate vehicle for challenging removal under the AEA reflects a nuanced understanding of the interplay between statutory interpretation and constitutional rights. The dissenters raised critical concerns about the implications of applying a wartime statute in a peacetime context, emphasizing the need for careful judicial oversight to protect individual rights against potential government overreach.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

Who has the power to decide when government money gets paid out? In the case of Department of Education v. California, the Supreme Court looked at whether a lower court could stop the government from ending certain education grants and force it to keep paying. The lower court had put a temporary hold on the government’s decision, but the Supreme Court stepped in and said that the government was likely right: the lower court probably didn’t have the authority to order those payments in the first place.

The heart of the matter was whether the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that lets people challenge government actions, actually allows courts to order the government to pay money. The Supreme Court said that, because of rules about when you can sue the government—what’s called “sovereign immunity”—the lower court likely went too far. This means the government can move forward with its plan to end those grants, at least for now.

Summary of the Case

This case, Department of Education v. California, arose when the U.S. Department of Education abruptly terminated over 100 education-related grants awarded to public schools and universities under the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) programs. These grants, authorized by Congress, were intended to address teacher shortages and improve teacher quality, particularly in underserved areas. Eight states sued the Department, alleging that the mass termination was arbitrary, capricious, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The District Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the terminations and restore the status quo while considering a preliminary injunction. The Department of Education sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court to stay the TRO, arguing that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA and that the proper forum for such claims was the Court of Federal Claims.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, granted the Department of Education’s application to stay the District Court’s TRO pending appeal. The Court reasoned that, although TROs are generally not appealable, the District Court’s order functioned as a preliminary injunction and thus was reviewable. The Court found that the government was likely to succeed in showing that the District Court lacked jurisdiction under the APA to order the payment of money, citing the APA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity, which does not extend to claims seeking money damages or to enforce contractual obligations to pay money (see 5 U.S.C. §702; Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002)). The Court also found that the government would be unlikely to recover disbursed funds if the TRO remained in effect, while the respondents (the states) would not suffer irreparable harm because they could recover any wrongfully withheld funds through other legal means. The stay will remain in effect pending the outcome of the appeal and any petition for certiorari.

Separate Opinions

The Chief Justice (John Roberts) would have denied the application for a stay, but did not write a separate opinion.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Kagan dissented, arguing that the Court’s intervention was unwarranted and premature. She emphasized that the government did not defend the legality of the grant cancellations and that the states had shown concrete harm from the loss of funding. Kagan contended that the APA generally allows district courts to review agency actions, even when monetary relief may result, and that the majority’s reliance on Great-West was misplaced because that case did not involve the APA. She criticized the Court for acting on an emergency basis without full briefing or argument, suggesting that the dispute should have proceeded in the ordinary course.

Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, also dissented. She argued that the TRO was a standard, time-limited order preserving the status quo and causing no concrete harm to the government, while the grant terminations would inflict significant harm on grantees. Jackson maintained that the government’s claims of irreparable harm were speculative and that the lower courts were better positioned to resolve the merits. She further argued that the Department’s mass termination of grants was likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA, as it lacked individualized reasoning and failed to follow required procedures. Jackson criticized the majority for intervening on technical jurisdictional grounds and for potentially shifting the forum for such disputes from district courts to the Court of Federal Claims.

Sovereign Immunity

The legal nuance in this case centers on the scope of the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity and the proper forum for challenging agency actions involving monetary relief. The APA allows for judicial review of agency actions and waives sovereign immunity for certain claims, but this waiver does not apply if another statute “forbids the relief which is sought” or if the claim seeks “money damages” (5 U.S.C. §702). The Supreme Court has distinguished between claims for specific relief (such as setting aside agency action) and claims for money damages, with the latter generally falling under the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims via the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1)). In Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988), the Court held that district courts could order the release of funds wrongfully withheld by an agency, but not to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money. The majority here interpreted the District Court’s order as effectively enforcing a contractual obligation, thus exceeding the APA’s waiver and requiring the case to be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. The dissenters, however, viewed the relief as within the APA’s scope, emphasizing the need for reasoned agency decision-making and the appropriateness of district court review. This case thus highlights the complex interplay between administrative law, sovereign immunity, and the allocation of judicial authority between district courts and the Court of Federal Claims.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

The Supreme Court recently tackled a case that dives into the nuances of how evidence is handled in court. In the case of Brenda Evers Andrew versus Tamika White, the Court looked at whether certain evidence used in Andrew's trial was unfairly prejudicial. They found that the Tenth Circuit made a mistake by not recognizing that the Due Process Clause protects defendants from evidence that could make their trial fundamentally unfair.

This ruling means that the case is being sent back for further examination. The justices emphasized that there are clear rules about what kind of evidence can be presented in court, and if that evidence is too damaging, it can violate a person's rights. The decision was made by a majority of the justices, with some additional opinions from Justice Samuel Alito, while Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

This case highlights the importance of ensuring that trials are fair and just, reminding us that the legal system must protect the rights of individuals, even when the stakes are high.

Summary of the Case

The case of Brenda Evers Andrew v. Tamika White arose from the conviction of Brenda Andrew for the murder of her husband, Rob Andrew, for which she was sentenced to death. During her trial, the prosecution introduced extensive evidence regarding Andrew's sexual history and perceived failings as a mother and wife, much of which was later deemed irrelevant. Andrew contended that this evidence was so prejudicial that it violated her rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected her claim, asserting that no established Supreme Court ruling supported the idea that the erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence could violate due process. This led to Andrew's petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, vacated the Tenth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court clarified that the introduction of evidence that is unduly prejudicial can indeed violate the Due Process Clause if it renders a trial fundamentally unfair. The Court referenced its previous ruling in Payne v. Tennessee, which established that the Due Process Clause provides a mechanism for relief against such prejudicial evidence. The Court emphasized that the Tenth Circuit had erred in failing to recognize this principle as clearly established law, thus preventing it from properly assessing whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) had unreasonably applied this law in Andrew's case. The Court directed the Tenth Circuit to consider the prejudicial impact of the evidence separately for both the guilt and sentencing phases of Andrew's trial.

Separate Opinions

Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the judgment but did not express an opinion on whether the high standard for due process violations was met in this case. He acknowledged that a defendant's due-process rights could be violated when irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence overwhelms properly admitted evidence, referencing the same precedents cited by the Court.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented. Thomas argued that the Tenth Circuit correctly adhered to the principles established under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) by not broadly interpreting the one-sentence caveat in Payne as establishing a general rule against the admission of prejudicial evidence. He contended that the majority's decision misapplied AEDPA by elevating a vague principle to "clearly established" law without a specific holding from the Supreme Court. Thomas maintained that the evidence presented at trial was overwhelmingly indicative of Andrew's guilt and that the introduction of certain prejudicial evidence did not warrant a finding of fundamental unfairness.

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

The legal nuance in this case revolves around the interpretation of "clearly established federal law" under AEDPA, which requires that a state court's decision must be contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court holdings. The Court clarified that the principle established in Payne—that the Due Process Clause can protect against the introduction of unduly prejudicial evidence—was indeed a holding relevant to Andrew's case. However, the dissent highlighted the importance of distinguishing between holdings and dicta, arguing that the Tenth Circuit's interpretation was consistent with established legal standards. The case underscores the tension between the need for fair trial protections and the procedural constraints imposed by AEDPA, particularly in how courts interpret and apply established precedents to new factual scenarios.

---

music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras

Listen to the episode on Spotify

Protecting Americans from foreign threats or First Amendment rights? That's the question the Supreme Court considered in TikTok Inc. V. Merrick B. Garland. Hear how the Court applied intermediate scrutiny to affirm the government's role in preventing China from collecting data on U.S. users.

The law in question requires TikTok to either cut ties with its Chinese ownership or stop its operations in the United States altogether. The justices decided that this law does not infringe on free speech rights. They found that the government's need to protect sensitive data from foreign adversaries, like China, is a compelling reason to enforce these restrictions.

In their ruling, the Court applied a standard called intermediate scrutiny, which means they carefully examined whether the law is appropriate and necessary for the government's important interest in safeguarding American users' information. Ultimately, they concluded that the law is well-designed to address these concerns.

This decision highlights the ongoing debate about privacy, security, and the role of foreign companies in the U.S. digital landscape. As we navigate these issues, the balance between protecting national security and upholding individual rights remains a critical conversation.

Summary of the Case

The case of TikTok Inc. v. Merrick B. Garland arose from the enactment of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which prohibits U.S. companies from providing services related to TikTok unless it is divested from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance Ltd. The petitioners, TikTok Inc. and a group of U.S. TikTok users, challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing that it violated their First Amendment rights by effectively banning TikTok in the United States. The case was brought before the Supreme Court after the D.C. Circuit Court upheld the Act, asserting that the government's national security interests justified the restrictions imposed on TikTok.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the D.C. Circuit's ruling, concluding that the Act does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the petitioners. The Court acknowledged that while the Act imposes significant burdens on TikTok's operations, it is justified by compelling government interests related to national security, particularly concerning data collection by a foreign adversary. The Court determined that the Act is content-neutral, as it does not target specific speech but rather regulates the operation of a platform controlled by a foreign entity. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny, finding that the Act serves an important government interest and is narrowly tailored to address the risks posed by TikTok's data collection practices. The Court emphasized the unique context of the case, given the national security concerns surrounding foreign control of a widely used communication platform.

Separate Opinions

Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in part and in the judgment but disagreed with Part II.A of the Court's opinion. She argued that the Act does implicate the First Amendment and that laws imposing a disproportionate burden on expressive activities should be subject to heightened scrutiny. However, she ultimately agreed that the Act survives the First Amendment challenge.

Justice Neil Gorsuch also concurred in the judgment, expressing reservations about the law's classification as content-neutral and the implications of the government's justification for the law. He emphasized the importance of free speech and the potential dangers of government censorship but acknowledged the compelling interest in preventing foreign adversaries from accessing sensitive data.

Dissenting Opinions

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. All justices either concurred with the majority opinion or provided separate concurring opinions that did not oppose the ruling.

First Amendment Rights and Using Intermediate Scrutiny to Justify the Law

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act represents a significant intersection of national security and First Amendment rights. The law's provisions specifically target applications controlled by foreign adversaries, particularly those that pose risks to U.S. national security through data collection. The Court's analysis highlighted the importance of distinguishing between content-based and content-neutral regulations, ultimately categorizing the Act as content-neutral due to its focus on the operational control of TikTok rather than the content shared on the platform. This classification allowed the Court to apply intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny, which would have imposed a higher burden on the government to justify the law. The Court's decision reflects a cautious approach to emerging technologies and the complexities of regulating foreign influence in digital communication, emphasizing the need for a balance between protecting free expression and safeguarding national security interests.

---

music for the podcast provided by Dimitry Taras