The High Court Report

OVERVIEW

Four opinions released June 29th, 2026 — one day, across digital privacy, presidential removal power at two federal agencies, and absentee ballot receipt deadlines.

Two decisions split 6-3 along identical lines — the same conservative majority, the same liberal dissent — in Chatrie (Fourth Amendment) and Slaughter (FTC removal). A third split 5-4 in Cook, with Roberts crossing coalitions to block the President's removal of a Federal Reserve governor. A fourth, Watson, drew Barrett alongside Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to protect state absentee-ballot rules.

Chief Justice Roberts authored two majorities — opposite outcomes in two "Trump v." cases on...

Wolford v. Lopez | Case No. 24-1046 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: January 20, 2026 | Decided: June 25, 2026

Overview: After Bruen recognized the right to public carry, Hawaii required licensed gun carriers to obtain express permission before entering any private business open to the public — reversing the common-law presumption of open entry for anyone, including armed citizens.

Question Presented: Whether Hawaii may prohibit licensed carry permit holders from entering private commercial property while armed without the property owner's express permission.

Posture: District court enjoined the law; Ninth Circuit reversed; Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Main Arguments:

Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau | Case No. 25-429 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 22, 2026 | Decided: June 23, 2026

Overview: The Court addressed whether border officers must possess clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder committed a crime before stripping that person of already-admitted status and treating the holder as an applicant for admission.

Question Presented: Whether the INA requires border officers to possess clear and convincing evidence of a crime before treating a green card holder as seeking admission.

Posture: Second Circuit vacated removal order; Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve...

Pung v. Isabella County | Case No. 25-95 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 02/25/2026 | Decided: 06/23/2026

Overview: A Michigan family lost their $194,400 home at a tax auction for $76,008 over a disputed $2,241.93 debt. The Court decided whether just compensation under the Takings Clause demands fair market value or only the auction surplus.

Question Presented: Whether the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause requires the government to pay fair market value — not just the auction surplus — after a tax foreclosure sale.

Posture: District Court awarded surplus only; Sixth Circuit affirmed on circuit precedent; Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Main Arguments:

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (Cuba), et al. | Case No. 24-699 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 02/23/2026 | Decided: 06/23/2026

Overview: Cuba's Communist government confiscated Exxon's oil refinery and service stations in 1960. Congress created a legal remedy in 1996 via the Helms-Burton Act. The Court decided whether that law itself strips Cuban government companies of their immunity shield.

Question Presented: Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban government agencies and instrumentalities, excusing plaintiffs from satisfying the FSIA's separate exceptions.

Posture: District court and divided D.C. Circuit sided with Cuban defendants; S...

Overview:

PART 1: SHOW NOTES

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I | Case No. 24-856 | Docket Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-856.html | Argued: 04/28/2026 | Decided: 06/23/2026

Overview: The Supreme Court ended corporate accountability under two federal human-rights statutes, ruling that courts carry no authority to create new Alien Tort Statute lawsuits and that the Torture Victim Protection Act reaches only direct perpetrators — not their corporate enablers.

Question Presented: Whether the ATS and TVPA authorize civil aiding-and-abetting liability against a U.S. technology company that allegedly helped a foreign government torture a religious minority.

Overview:

United States v. Hemani | Case No. 24-1234 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 03/02/2026 | Decided: 06/18/2026

Overview: A federal law strips gun rights from regular drug users without proof of danger. This case tests how far the Second Amendment's history-and-tradition standard limits Congress's power to disarm marijuana users.

Oral Advocates:

Question Presented: Whether 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied...

Hunter v. United States | Case No. 24-1063 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 03/03/2026 | Decided: 06/18/2026

Overview: A plea deal's appeal waiver collides with a forced-medication sentence, pushing the Supreme Court to decide when courts can void a waiver — reshaping appellate rights for the ninety-five percent of federal defendants who plead guilty.

Oral Advocates:

Question Presented: Whether an appeal waiver remains enforceable when enforcing it wo...

United States v. Hemani | Case No. 24-1234 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 03/02/2026 | Decided: 06/18/2026

Interview with Adeel Bashir: Here

Overview: A federal law strips gun rights from regular drug users without proof of danger. This case tests how far the Second Amendment's history-and-tradition standard limits Congress's power to disarm marijuana users.

Question Presented: Whether 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to a marijuana user with no history of violence.

Posture: District court dismissed the indictment; Fifth Circuit affirmed; Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Main Arguments:

Hunter v. United States | Case No. 24-1063 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 03/03/2026 | Decided: 06/18/2026

Overview: A plea deal's appeal waiver collides with a forced-medication sentence, pushing the Supreme Court to decide when courts can void a waiver — reshaping appellate rights for the ninety-five percent of federal defendants who plead guilty.

Question Presented: Whether an appeal waiver remains enforceable when enforcing it would create a miscarriage of justice in sentencing.

Posture: Fifth Circuit dismissed Hunter's appeal under the waiver; Court granted certiorari to resolve a split.

Main Arguments:

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation | Case No. 25-197 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 20, 2026 | Decided: June 18, 2026

Overview: A Maryland woman signed a state-court consent order to secure release from involuntary psychiatric commitment, then challenged that order in federal district court while her state-court appeal remained pending — pushing the limits of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Question Presented: Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over suits challenging state-court judgments that remain subject to further review in state appellate proceedings.

Posture: Fourth Circuit affirmed District Court's dismissal of T.M.'s co...

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation | Case No. 25-197 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 20, 2026 | Decided: June 18, 2026

Overview: A Maryland woman signed a state-court consent order to secure release from involuntary psychiatric commitment, then challenged that order in federal district court while her state-court appeal remained pending — pushing the limits of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Question Presented: Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over suits challenging state-court judgments that remain subject to further review in state appellate proceedings.

Posture: Fourth Circuit affirmed District Court's dismissal of T.M.'s co...

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. | Case No. 24-345 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 12/10/2025 | Decided: 06/11/2026

Overview: The Investment Company Act case addresses whether Section 47(b) grants private parties the right to sue for contract rescission, testing the limits of implied private rights of ac

Oral Advocates:

Question Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act impliedly empowers private parties to sue for contract rescission.

Posture: District...

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. | Case No. 24-345 | Docket: Here | Argued: 12/10/2025 | Decided: 06/11/2026

Overview: The Investment Company Act case addresses whether Section 47(b) grants private parties the right to sue for contract rescission, testing the limits of implied private rights of action against a comprehensive SEC enforcement scheme.

Oral Advocates:

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. | Case No. 24-345 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 12/10/2025 | Decided: 06/11/2026

Overview: The Investment Company Act case addresses whether Section 47(b) grants private parties the right to sue for contract rescission, testing the limits of implied private rights of action against a comprehensive SEC enforcement scheme.

Question Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act impliedly empowers private parties to sue for contract rescission.

Posture: District Court granted Saba summary judgment; Second Circuit summarily affirmed; Supreme Court reversed.

Main Arguments:

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. | Case No. 24-345 | Docket: Here | Argued: 12/10/2025 | Decided: 06/11/2026

Overview: The Investment Company Act case addresses whether Section 47(b) grants private parties the right to sue for contract rescission, testing the limits of implied private rights of action against a comprehensive SEC enforcement scheme.

Question Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act impliedly empowers private parties to sue for contract rescission.

Posture: District Court granted Saba summary judgment; Second Circuit summarily affirmed; Supreme Court reversed.

Main Arguments:

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | Case No. 25-6 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 3/24/2026 | Decided: 6/11/2026

Oral Advocates:

Overview: A bankruptcy debtor's failure to disclose a personal-injury lawsuit triggered the Fifth Circuit's rigid two-factor estoppel test, splitting federal circuits over whether courts must examine all circumstances or presume bad faith from knowledge and motive alone.

Question Presented: Whether courts must...

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | Case No. 25-6 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 3/24/2026 | Decided: 6/11/2026

Overview: A bankruptcy debtor's failure to disclose a personal-injury lawsuit triggered the Fifth Circuit's rigid two-factor estoppel test, splitting federal circuits over whether courts must examine all circumstances or presume bad faith from knowledge and motive alone.

Question Presented: Whether courts must examine the totality of circumstances — not just two factors — to determine if a bankruptcy debtor's omission of a lawsuit qualifies as inadvertent.

Posture: District court and Fifth Circuit dismissed Keathley's personal-injury lawsuit under rigid two-factor judicial estoppel rule...

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. | Case No. 24-889 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 04/29/2026 | Decided: 06/04/2026

Oral Advocates:

Overview: Amarin's cardiovascular drug patent faced challenge when generic maker Hikma launched a skinny-label version and marketed it through statements Amarin claimed encouraged doctors to prescribe the generic for the still-patented heart indication.

Question Presented: Whether a generic drug maker's marketing statements plausibly constitute "active...

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. | Case No. 24-889 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 04/29/2026 | Decided: 06/04/2026

Overview: Amarin's cardiovascular drug patent faced challenge when generic maker Hikma launched a skinny-label version and marketed it through statements Amarin claimed encouraged doctors to prescribe the generic for the still-patented heart indication.

Question Presented: Whether a generic drug maker's marketing statements plausibly constitute "active steps" inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b).

Posture: District Court dismissed; Federal Circuit reversed; Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Main Arguments:

Petitioner (Hikma):

Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission | Case No. 25-466 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 20, 2026 | Decided: June 4, 2026

Overview: The Supreme Court resolves a circuit split over whether the SEC must prove investors lost money before ordering disgorgement — preserving billions in annual securities enforcement power.

Question Presented: Whether the SEC may seek disgorgement without proving investors suffered pecuniary harm.

Posture: Ninth Circuit affirmed disgorgement without pecuniary harm; Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve circuit split.

Main Arguments:

Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission | Case No. 25-466 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 20, 2026 | Decided: June 4, 2026

Overview: The Supreme Court resolves a circuit split over whether the SEC must prove investors lost money before ordering disgorgement — preserving billions in annual securities enforcement power.

Question Presented: Whether the SEC may seek disgorgement without proving investors suffered pecuniary harm.

Posture: Ninth Circuit affirmed disgorgement without pecuniary harm; Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve circuit split.

Main Arguments:

FCC v. AT&T, Inc. / Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC | Case Nos. 25-406 & 25-567 | Docket Links: Here and Here | Argued: April 21, 2026 | Decided: June 4, 2026

Oral Advocates:

Overview: The FCC fined AT&T $57.3 million and Verizon $46.9 million for mishandling customer location data through in-house proceedings offering no jury — raising the question whether those proceedings violated the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in civil suits at common law.

Question Presented: Wh...

FCC v. AT&T, Inc. / Verizon Communications, Inc. v. FCC | Case Nos. 25-406 & 25-567 | Docket Links: Here and Here | Argued: April 21, 2026 | Decided: June 4, 2026

Overview: The FCC fined AT&T $57.3 million and Verizon $46.9 million for mishandling customer location data through in-house proceedings offering no jury — raising the question whether those proceedings violated the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in civil suits at common law.

Question Presented: Whether the FCC's administrative forfeiture process violates the Seventh Amendment by imposing civil monetary penalties on regulated carriers without guaranteeing a jury trial.

Posture: Fifth Circuit va...

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock | Case No. 24-935 | Argued: 3/25/26 | Decided: May 28, 2026 | Docket Link: Here

Overview: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that last-mile delivery workers who never cross state lines still qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption from mandatory arbitration if their intrastate routes form part of a continuous interstate journey.

Question Presented: Whether a worker qualifies for the FAA's Section 1 arbitration exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with interstate vehicles.

Posture: District court denied arbitration; Tenth Circuit affirmed; Supreme Court granted cert.

Oral Advocates:

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock | Case No. 24-935 | Argued: 3/25/26 | Decided: May 28, 2026 | Docket Link: Here

Overview: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that last-mile delivery workers who never cross state lines still qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption from mandatory arbitration if their intrastate routes form part of a continuous interstate journey.

Question Presented: Whether a worker qualifies for the FAA's Section 1 arbitration exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with interstate vehicles.

Posture: District court denied arbitration; Tenth Circuit affirmed; Supreme Court granted cert.

Main Arguments:

Pitchford v. Cain | Case No. 24-7351 | Argued: 3/31/26 | Decided: 5/28/26 | Docket Link: Here

Overview: A Mississippi prosecutor struck four of five eligible Black jurors at a death penalty trial, a trial court skipped the required third step of the racial-discrimination inquiry, and the Mississippi Supreme Court then called it a waiver. The Supreme Court reverses.

Question Presented: Whether Mississippi's courts unreasonably declared forfeited a racial jury-selection challenge the trial court itself blocked.

Posture: Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of federal habeas relief; Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Main Arguments:

Pitchford v. Cain | Case No. 24-7351 | Argued: 3/31/26 | Decided: 5/28/26 | Docket Link: Here

Overview: A Mississippi prosecutor struck four of five eligible Black jurors at a death penalty trial, a trial court skipped the required third step of the racial-discrimination inquiry, and the Mississippi Supreme Court then called it a waiver. The Supreme Court reverses.

Question Presented: Whether Mississippi's courts unreasonably declared forfeited a racial jury-selection challenge the trial court itself blocked.

Posture: Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of federal habeas relief; Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Main Arguments:

Fernandez v. United States | Case No. 24-556 | Decided: 5/28/26 | Docket Link: Here

Overview: A federal prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence sought early release by arguing potential innocence — but the Supreme Court closed that door, ruling compassionate release cannot substitute for the strict habeas process Congress designed.

Question Presented: Whether a federal prisoner may use the compassionate release statute to challenge the validity of his conviction when habeas corpus procedures remain unavailable.

Posture: Second Circuit reversed compassionate release grant; seven-two circuit split prompted cert.

Oral Advocates:

Fernandez v. United States | Case No. 24-556 | Decided: 5/28/26 | Docket Link: Here

Overview: A federal prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence sought early release by arguing potential innocence — but the Supreme Court closed that door, ruling compassionate release cannot substitute for the strict habeas process Congress designed.

Question Presented: Whether a federal prisoner may use the compassionate release statute to challenge the validity of his conviction when habeas corpus procedures remain unavailable.

Posture: Second Circuit reversed compassionate release grant; seven-two circuit split prompted cert.

Main Arguments:

Carter v. United States | Case No. 24-860 | Date Decided: 5/28/26 | Oral Argument Date: 11/12/25 | Docket Link: Here (consolidated with Rutherford v. United States | Case No. 24-820 | Docket Link: Here)

Overview: Two prisoners serving decades-long gun-crime sentences sought early release after Congress reduced those sentences for future offenders but deliberately left them behind. The Court resolved whether that deliberate legislative gap qualified as a reason for compassionate release.

Question Presented: Whether a sentencing disparity created by Congress's nonretroactive change to mandatory gun-crime penalties qualifies as an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for compassionate release.

Posture: Third Circuit...

Carter v. United States | Case No. 24-860 | Date Decided: 5/28/26 | Oral Argument Date: 11/12/25 | Docket Link: Here (consolidated with Rutherford v. United States | Case No. 24-820 | Docket Link: Here)

Overview: Two prisoners serving decades-long gun-crime sentences sought early release after Congress reduced those sentences for future offenders but deliberately left them behind. The Court resolved whether that deliberate legislative gap qualified as a reason for compassionate release.

Question Presented: Whether a sentencing disparity created by Congress's nonretroactive change to mandatory gun-crime penalties qualifies as an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for compassionate release.

Posture: Third Circuit...

Carter v. United States | Case No. 24-860 | Date Decided: 5/28/26 | Oral Argument Date: 11/12/25 | Docket Link: Here (consolidated with Rutherford v. United States | Case No. 24-820 | Docket Link: Here)

Overview: Two prisoners serving decades-long gun-crime sentences sought early release after Congress reduced those sentences for future offenders but deliberately left them behind. The Court resolved whether that deliberate legislative gap qualified as a reason for compassionate release.

Question Presented: Whether a sentencing disparity created by Congress's nonretroactive change to mandatory gun-crime penalties qualifies as an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for compassionate release.

Posture: Third Circuit...

Hamm v. Smith | Case No. 24-872 | Oral Argument Date: 12/10/25 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: When someone takes multiple IQ tests to prove intellectual disability in a capital case, do courts look at all the scores together, or can one low score alone save their life?

Overview

The Supreme Court will decide whether courts must evaluate multiple IQ scores collectively or whether a single qualifying score triggers constitutional protection in death penalty cases. This decision affects hundreds of current death row inmates and reshapes capital litigation nationwide.

Oral Advocates:

Hamm v. Smith | Case No. 24-872 | Decided: May 21, 2026 | Docket Link: Here

Overview: Death penalty case examining how courts evaluate multiple IQ scores when determining intellectual disability under Atkins. Court dismissed writ as improvidently granted after oral argument revealed parties never litigated the question below.

Question Presented: Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing Atkins claims.

Posture: Eleventh Circuit affirmed District Court finding Smith intellectually disabled using holistic approach.

Main Arguments:

M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of The IAM Pension Fund | Argument Date: 1/20/26 | Docket Link: Here

Oral Advocates:

Question Presented: Can pension plans charge higher prices using future prices, or must they stick with the original prices?

Overview: Four companies' pension withdrawal liability tripled from timing of...

I'll create show notes and five alternative episode title options for this opinion episode.Now I'll create the show notes and title options for the M & K Employee Solutions opinion episode.

PART 1: SHOW NOTES

M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of IAM National Pension Fund | Case No. 23-1209 | Decided May 21, 2026 | Docket Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1209.html

Overview: ERISA withdrawal liability dispute resolves when pension plan actuaries must select calculation assumptions, affecting billions in retirement obligations across multiemployer pension plans serving unionized workers nationwide.

Question...

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. | Oral Argument: 2/23/2026 | Case No. 24-983 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether Title III liability requires proving defendants trafficked in property plaintiff currently owns a claim to, or property plaintiff would own absent confiscation.

Overview: Cuban property confiscation case challenges Eleventh Circuit's "counterfactual analysis" requiring proof of hypothetical property ownership, potentially gutting Congress's primary tool for pressuring hostile regimes.

Posture: Eleventh Circuit reversed district court grant of summary judgment for petitioner.

Holding: Havana Docks is not required to establish that the cruise lines “trafficked” in H...