US Supreme Court

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter dies at age 85

Fri, 09 May 2025 05:00:00 GMT

Press release from the U.S. Supreme Court:

Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, David H. Souter, died peacefully yesterday at home in New Hampshire. He was 85 years old. Justice Souter was appointed to the Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, and retired in 2009, after serving more than 19 years on the Court.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. said of Justice Souter: “Justice David Souter served our Court with great distinction for nearly twenty years. He brought uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service. After retiring to his beloved New Hampshire in 2009, he continued to render significant service to our branch by sitting regularly on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for more than a decade. He will be greatly missed.”

Justice Souter was born in Melrose, Massachusetts, on September 17, 1939. He graduated from Harvard College, from which he received his A.B. After two years as a Rhodes Scholar at Magdalen College, Oxford, he received an A.B. in Jurisprudence from Oxford University and an M.A. in 1963. After receiving an LL.B. from Harvard Law School, he was an associate at Orr and Reno in Concord, New Hampshire, from 1966 to 1968, when he became an Assistant Attorney General of New Hampshire. In 1971, he became Deputy Attorney General and in 1976, Attorney General of New Hampshire. In 1978, he was named an Associate Justice of the Superior Court of New Hampshire, and was appointed to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire as an Associate Justice in 1983. He became a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on May 25, 1990.

In addition to hearing cases on the First Circuit, Justice Souter participated in civics education curriculum reform efforts in New Hampshire during his retirement.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_05-09-25

U.S. Supreme Court Comments on the Death of Sandra Day O’Connor.

Tue, 19 Dec 2023 06:00:00 GMT

The funeral for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was held in Washington, D.C. today at the National Cathedral. Attendees and speakers included President Joe Biden, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Jay H. O'Connor, Justice O'Connor's son. Justice O'Connor was nominated as the first woman to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan and served from 1981-2006.

Statements From Current and Past Justices of The U.S. Supreme Court Regarding The Death Of Retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor may be found in the following link.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_12-01-23b

U.S.: Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dies at 93

Fri, 01 Dec 2023 17:30:00 GMT

From the U.S. Supreme Court:

Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Sandra Day O’Connor died this morning in Phoenix, Arizona, of complications related to advanced dementia, probably Alzheimer’s, and a respiratory illness. She was 93 years old. Justice O’Connor was appointed to the Court by President Reagan in 1981 and retired in 2006, after serving more than 24 years on the Court. She was the first female member of the Court. She is survived by her three sons, Scott (Joanie) O’Connor, Brian (Shawn) O’Connor, and Jay (Heather) O’Connor, six grandchildren: Courtney, Adam, Keely, Weston, Dylan and Luke, and her beloved brother and co-author, Alan Day, Sr. Her husband, John O’Connor, preceded her in death in 2009.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said of Justice O’Connor: “A daughter of the American Southwest, Sandra Day O’Connor blazed an historic trail as our Nation’s first female Justice. She met that challenge with undaunted determination, indisputable ability, and engaging candor. We at the Supreme Court mourn the loss of a beloved colleague, a fiercely independent defender of the rule of law, and an eloquent advocate for civics education. And we celebrate her enduring legacy as a true public servant and patriot.”

Justice O’Connor was born in El Paso, Texas, on March 26, 1930. She married John Jay O’Connor III in 1952. She received her B.A. and LL.B. from Stanford University. She served as Deputy County Attorney of San Mateo County, California, from 1952 to 1953 and as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center, Frankfurt, Germany, from 1954 to 1957. From 1958 to 1960, she practiced law in Maryvale, Arizona, before serving as Assistant Attorney General of Arizona from 1965 to 1969. She was appointed to the Arizona State Senate in 1969 and was subsequently reelected to two two-year terms, during which she was selected as Majority Leader. In 1975 she was elected Judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court and served until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Justice O’Connor wrote five books: Lazy B: Growing Up on a Cattle Ranch in the American Southwest (2002); The Majesty of the Law: Reflections of a Supreme Court Justice (2002); Chico (2005); Finding Susie (2009); and Out of Order: Stories from the History of the Supreme Court (2013).

Following her tenure on the Supreme Court, she founded and led iCivics, the Nation’s leading civics education platform. As President Reagan said when first introducing her to the American people, she was a woman for all seasons.

Plans regarding Justice O’Connor’s funeral will be released when available.

Justice serves as scholar for teacher professional development program

Fri, 21 Jul 2023 05:00:00 GMT

North Dakota Supreme Court Justice Daniel J. Crothers served as a scholar for the North Dakota Social Studies and We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution Summer Institute held in Bismarck July 16-19.

Fifteen North Dakota social studies teachers participated in the annual professional development that covered topics ranging from the founding of the American Constitution and U.S. system of government to historical and modern constitutional challenges. Justice Crothers spoke on the Bill of Rights and the responsibilities of citizenship.

The other scholars were Tim Moore, the deputy director for the Center for the Study of the American Constitution at the University of Wisconsin, and Chris Cavanaugh, a James Madison Memorial Senior Fellow and Advanced Placement U.S. History teacher at Bismarck High School. Assisting the scholars were mentor teachers Melissa Entzi of Edgeley High School and Shannon Sorenson of Bismarck Century High School. Special guest was North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe.

The We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, is a school-based curriculum that engages students in their understanding of the history and principles of our constitutional government. Focusing on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, this program fosters civic competence and responsibility among students.

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: June 30

Fri, 30 Jun 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued three new opinions.

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis the court held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

In Department of Education v. Brown the court held that respondents lack Article III standing to assert a procedural challenge to the student-loan debt-forgiveness plan adopted by the Secretary of Education pursuant to Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-535_i3kn.pdf

In Biden v. Nebraska the court held that the Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: June 29

Thu, 29 Jun 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued three new opinions.

In Groff v. DeJoy the court held that Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf

In Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc. the court held that applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, two provisions of the Lanham Act that prohibit trademark infringement—15 U. S. C. §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1)—are not extraterritorial and extend only to claims where the infringing “use in commerce” is domestic.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College the court held that the admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: June 27

Tue, 27 Jun 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued three new opinions.

In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co. the court held that a Pennsylvania law requiring out-of-state companies that register to do business in Pennsylvania to agree to appear in Pennsylvania courts on “any cause of action” against them comports with the Due Process Clause under Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U. S. 93 (1917).

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1168_kifl.pdf

In Counterman v. Colorado the court held that to establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the State must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements’ threatening nature, based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf

In Moore v. Harper the court held that the Federal Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections and therefore did not bar the North Carolina Supreme Court from reviewing the North Carolina Legislature’s congressional districting plans for compliance with North Carolina law.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: June 23

Fri, 23 Jun 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued four new opinions.

In United States v. Hansen the court held that Title 8 U. S. C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)—which criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” illegal immigration—forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law and is not unconstitutionally overbroad.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf

In Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski the court held that a district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal taken pursuant to 9 U. S. C. §16(a) on the question of arbitrability is ongoing.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf

In United States v. Texas the court held that Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge immigration-enforcement guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security that prioritize the arrest and removal of certain noncitizens from the United States.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-58_i425.pdf

In Samia v. United States the court held that the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession did not violate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause where the confession as modified did not directly inculpate the defendant but used the descriptor “other person” and the jury was instructed to consider the confession only as to the codefendant.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-196_p8k0.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: June 22

Thu, 22 Jun 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued four new opinions.

In Pugin v. Garland the court held that an offense may “relate to” obstruction of justice under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s definition of an “aggravated felony,” 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(S), even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-23_d18e.pdf

In Arizona v. Navajo Nation the court held that the 1868 treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation but did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf

In Yegiazaryan v. Smagin the court held that a plaintiff alleges a “domestic injury” as required by RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U. S. 325, for filing a private civil suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U. S. C. §1964(c), when the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-381_d1of.pdf

In Jones v. Hendrix the court held that the saving clause in 28 U. S. C. §2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in the interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s restrictions on second or successive §2255 motions by filing a habeas petition under §2241.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-857_4357.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: June 16

Fri, 16 Jun 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued two new opinions.

In Lora v. United States the court held that the bar on imposition of concurrent sentences in 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(1)(D)(ii) does not apply to a sentence for a §924(j) conviction; a §924(j) sentence can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-49_d18e.pdf

In United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. the court held that in a qui tam action filed under the False Claims Act, the United States may move to dismiss under 31 U. S. C. §3730(c)(2)(A) whenever it has intervened—whether during the seal period or later on; in assessing a motion to dismiss an FCA action over a relator’s objection, district courts should apply the rule generally governing voluntary dismissal of suits in ordinary civil litigation—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1052_fd9g.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: June 15

Thu, 15 Jun 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued three new opinions.

In Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin the court held that the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally abrogates the sovereign immunity of all governments, including federally recognized Indian tribes.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-227_i426.pdf

In Haaland v. Brackeen the court held that in child custody proceedings governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act, the Court affirms the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that ICWA is consistent with Congress’s Article I authority, rejects petitioners’ anticommandeering challenges under the Tenth Amendment, and finds the parties lack standing to litigate their other challenges to ICWA’s placement preferences.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf

In Smith v. United States the court held that the Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1576_e29g.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: June 8

Thu, 08 Jun 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued four new opinions.

In Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion Cty. v. Talevski the court held that the provisions of the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act at issue unambiguously create rights enforceable under 42 U. S. C. §1983, and private enforcement under §1983 is compatible with the FNHRA’s remedial scheme.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-806_2dp3.pdf

In Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC the court held that when a defendant in a trademark suit uses the mark as a designation of source for its own goods or services—i.e., as a trademark—the threshold Rogers test for trademark infringement claims challenging so-called expressive works, see Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F. 2d 994, does not apply, and the Lanham Act’s exclusion from liability for “[a]ny noncommerical use of a mark,” §1125(c)(3)(C), does not shield parody, criticism, or commentary from a claim of trademark dilution.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-148_3e04.pdf

In Dubin v. United States the court held that under 18 U. S. C. §1028A(a)(1)’s crime of “aggravated identity theft,” a defendant “uses” another person’s means of identification “in relation to” a predicate offense when the use is at the crux of what makes the conduct criminal.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-10_ifjn.pdf

In Allen v. Milligan the court held that plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that the districting plan adopted by the State of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections likely violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U. S. C. §10301.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: June 1

Thu, 01 Jun 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued three new opinions.

In Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters the court held that the National Labor Relations Act did not preempt Glacier’s state tort claims related to the destruction of company property during a labor dispute where the Union failed to take reasonable precautions to avoid foreseeable and imminent danger to the property.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf

In Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani the court held that to state a claim under §11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, a plaintiff must allege the purchase of “such security” issued pursuant to a materially misleading registration statement.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-200_097c.pdf

In United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc. the court held that the False Claims Act’s scienter element—which asks whether a defendant “knowingly” submitted a “false” claim to the Government, 31 U. S. C. §3729(a)—refers to a defendant’s knowledge and subjective beliefs—not to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1326_6jfl.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: May 25

Thu, 25 May 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued three new opinions.

In Dupree v. Younger the court held that a post-trial motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 is not required to preserve for appellate review a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-210_7mi8.pdf

In Sackett v. EPA the court held that the Clean Water Act extends only to wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with “waters” of the United States—i.e., with a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters, 33 U. S. C. §1362(7)—making it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf

In Tyler v. Hennepin County the court held that petitioner Geraldine Tyler plausibly alleges that Hennepin County unconstitutionally retained the excess value of her home above her tax debt in violation of the Takings Clause.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinion: May 22

Mon, 22 May 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued a new opinion.

In Calcutt v. FDIC the court held that after determining that the FDIC had made two legal errors in adjudicating petitioner’s case, the Sixth Circuit’s proper course was to remand the matter back to the FDIC for further consideration; the Sixth Circuit erred by conducting its own review of the record and affirming the FDIC’s sanctions against petitioner based on a legal rationale different from the one adopted by the FDIC.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-714_4315.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: May 18

Thu, 18 May 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued six new opinions.

In Gonzalez v. Google LLC the court held that the Ninth Circuit’s judgment—which held that plaintiffs’ complaint was barred by §230 of the Communications Decency Act—is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of the Court’s decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf

in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi the court held that Amgen’s two patent applications—purporting to cover all antibodies that bind and block the PCSK9 receptor involved in LDL cholesterol metabolism—fail to satisfy the Patent Act’s enablement clause, see 35 U. S. C. §112(a).

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-757_k5g1.pdf

In Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith the court held that the “purpose and character” of the Andy Warhol Foundation’s particular commercial use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph—17 U. S. C. §107(1)—does not favor AWF’s “fair use” defense to copyright infringement.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf

In Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh the court held that the plaintiffs’ allegations that the social-media-company defendants aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on a nightclub in Instanbul, Turkey fail to state a claim under 18 U. S. C. §2333(d)(2).

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1496_d18f.pdf

In Ohio Adjutant General’s Dept. v. FLRA the court held that the Federal Labor Relations Authority had jurisdiction over this labor dispute because a State National Guard acts as a federal agency for purposes of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U. S. C. §7101 et seq., when it hires and supervises dual-status technicians serving in their civilian role.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1454_6kgm.pdf

In Polselli v. IRS the court held that when the Internal Revenue Service issues a summons pursuant to 26 U. S. C. §7602(a) in aid of collecting a tax liability, the exception to the notice requirement in §7609(c)(2)(D)(i) applies even if the delinquent taxpayer has no legal interest in the accounts or records summoned.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1599_l5gm.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: May 11

Thu, 11 May 2023 08:40:00 GMT

In Santos-Zacaria v. Garland the court held that Title 8 U. S. C. §1252(d)(1)—which requires noncitizens to “exhaus[t] all administrative remedies . . . as of right” before challenging a Board of Immigration Appeals final order of removal in federal court—is not a jurisdictional provision and does not require noncitizens to request discretionary forms of review.

Read the court's opinion at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1436_n6io.pdf

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross the court held that the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—affirming the dismissal of a complaint challenging California’s Proposition 12 under a dormant Commerce Clause rationale not grounded in an allegation that the law purposefully discriminates against out-of-state economic interests—is affirmed.

Read the court's opinion at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf

In Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for P. R. v. Centro De Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. the court held that nothing in the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act—including its jurisdictional provision, 48 U. S. C. §2126(a)—categorically abrogates any sovereign immunity the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico enjoys from legal claims.

Read the court's opinion at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-96_6j7a.pdf

In Percoco v. United States the court held that jury instructions on the legal standard for finding that a private citizen owes the government a duty of honest services based on the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Margiotta, 688 F. 2d 108 (1982), were erroneous.

Read the court's opinion at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1158_p8k0.pdf

In Ciminelli v. United States the court held that the Second Circuit’s right-to-control theory—under which the Government can establish federal wire fraud by showing that the defendant schemed to deprive a victim of potentially valuable economic information necessary to make discretionary economic decisions—cannot form the basis for a conviction under the federal fraud statutes because the right to control is not grounded in a traditional property interest.

Read the court's opinion at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1170_b97d.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinions: April 19

Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued three new opinions.

In MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC the court held that Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code—which restricts the effects of certain successful appeals of judicially authorized sales or leases of bankruptcy-estate property—is not a jurisdictional provision.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1270_3204.pdf

In Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States the court held that the District Court has jurisdiction of this criminal prosecution under 18 U. S. C. §3231, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s comprehensive scheme governing claims of immunity in civil actions against foreign states and their instrumentalities does not cover criminal cases.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1450_5468.pdf

In Reed v. Goertz the court held that when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a 42 U. S. C. §1983 procedural due process claim begins to run when the state litigation ends, in this case when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reed’s motion for rehearing.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-442_e1p3.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinion: April 18

Tue, 18 Apr 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued a new opinion.

In New York v. New Jersey, the court held that, notwithstanding opposition by the State of New York, New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the 1953 Waterfront Commission Compact.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/156orig_k5fl.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court opinion: April 14

Fri, 14 Apr 2023 08:40:00 GMT

The United States Supreme Court has issued a new opinion.

In Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, the court held that the statutory review schemes set out in the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act do not displace a district court’s federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as unconstitutional the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf