Supreme Court opinions, explained.

Federal Reserve independencepresidential removal powerexecutive powercentral bankingdue process

The Supreme Court refused to let President Trump's firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook take effect while their lawsuit continues, ruling that the President did not give her the notice and chance to respond that the law requires before removing a Fed Governor. The decision leaves the Federal Reserve's traditional independence from White House control intact for now, though the Court left open whether Cook's alleged mortgage fraud could eventually count as valid grounds for removal if the President follows proper procedures.

2026-06-29

Watson v. Republican National Committee

absentee votingmail-in ballotselection lawvoting ruleselection integrity

The Court ruled that federal law setting a uniform Election Day does not stop Mississippi from counting absentee ballots that were mailed by Election Day but arrive up to five days later. The decision means the roughly thirty states that already count late-arriving mail ballots can keep doing so, resolving a dispute over whether a decades-old federal deadline governs only when people vote or also when their ballots must be in officials' hands.

2026-06-29

Chatrie v. United States

digital privacygeofence warrantscell phone location datasearch warrantspolicing technology

The Supreme Court ruled that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they used a geofence warrant to obtain a bank robbery suspect's Google location history, because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records of their cell phone's movements. The decision extends the Court's 2018 Carpenter ruling on cell-tower records to Google's more precise Location History service, meaning police generally need a warrant to access this kind of data, while leaving it to a lower court to decide whether this particular warrant was valid.

Wolford v. Lopez

gun rightsconcealed carrySecond Amendmentproperty rightsHawaii gun law

The Court struck down Hawaii's law requiring licensed gun carriers to get a business or property owner's express, affirmative permission before carrying a firearm onto private property open to the public, ruling it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The decision reinforces that states cannot use property-law default rules to effectively re-create the kind of broad public-carry restrictions the Court already struck down in Bruen, and it means Hawaii's licensed gun owners no longer need a landowner's explicit sign-off to enter ordinary businesses while armed.

Monsanto v. Durnell

Roundup lawsuitspesticide regulationfederal preemptionproduct liabilityEPA regulation

The Supreme Court ruled that federal pesticide law blocks a Missouri man's lawsuit claiming Monsanto should have put a cancer warning on Roundup, because the EPA has repeatedly reviewed and approved Roundup's label without that warning. The decision means federal approval of a pesticide label can override conflicting state jury verdicts, cutting off a major legal avenue that thousands of Roundup users have used to seek damages for cancer they blame on the weedkiller.

Mullin v. Al Otro Lado

immigrationasylumborder policyU.S.-Mexico bordermigrants

The Court ruled that migrants standing in Mexico have not 'arrived in the United States' and so are not yet entitled to be inspected or to apply for asylum, even if a border officer physically blocks them at the threshold of a port of entry. The decision upholds the government's ability to use 'metering' — stationing officers at the border to limit how many people are processed each day — and rejects the argument that the asylum and inspection laws protect people the moment they reach, but have not yet crossed, the boundary line.

Mullin v. Doe

immigration statusTemporary Protected Statusjudicial reviewequal protectionHaiti and Syria

The Supreme Court ruled that a federal law barring "judicial review" of Temporary Protected Status decisions blocks courts from hearing most challenges to the government's ending of TPS for Haiti and Syria, and that Haitian immigrants were unlikely to prove the termination was driven by race. The decision lets the government end TPS protections for Haitian and Syrian nationals immediately, undoing lower-court orders that had let them stay while their lawsuits continued, and signals that similar TPS terminations for other countries will be very hard to challenge in court.

Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety Revisions: 6/24/26

prisoners' rightsreligious freedomfederal spending powerqualified immunitygovernment accountability

The Supreme Court ruled that a Rastafarian inmate whose head guards forcibly shaved could not sue those guards personally for money damages under a federal religious-rights law, because the guards themselves never agreed to accept that liability — only their employer, the state prison system, had. The decision rests on the idea that Congress, when it spends federal money rather than directly regulating under another constitutional power, can only bind those who knowingly and voluntarily agree to the conditions attached to that money, sharply limiting who can be sued personally under laws like this one.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba)

Cuba embargoforeign sovereign immunityproperty confiscationHelms-Burton Actinternational business disputes

The Court ruled that a 1996 law letting Americans sue over property Cuba confiscated after Castro's takeover already strips Cuban state companies of their usual immunity from U.S. lawsuits, so plaintiffs like Exxon don't need to clear a separate immunity test that would have made most such suits nearly impossible. The decision revives Exxon's billion-dollar lawsuit over its seized oil refinery and stations, and more broadly opens the door for Americans to sue Cuban government companies over confiscated property without meeting requirements that Cuba's own trade embargo made almost impossible to satisfy.

Pung v. Isabella County

property taxestax foreclosuretakings clauseexcessive fineshome equity

The Supreme Court ruled that when a county forecloses on a home over unpaid taxes and sells it at a fairly run public auction, the Constitution only requires handing back the leftover money from that sale — not the home's full market value. The decision keeps a centuries-old tax-collection tool intact nationwide, while leaving open a separate fight over whether Isabella County's own sale of the Pung family home was actually run fairly.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe

human rights lawsuitscorporate liabilityChina surveillanceinternational lawtorture victims

The Court ruled that federal courts can no longer create new lawsuits for violations of international law under the centuries-old Alien Tort Statute, cutting off claims that Cisco Systems aided China's surveillance and torture of Falun Gong practitioners. The decision also holds that a related 1991 law protecting torture victims does not cover people who merely helped a torturer, sharply narrowing two of the main legal tools human-rights victims have used to sue companies and individuals in U.S. courts.

Blanche v. Lau

immigrationgreen card holdersdeportationborder enforcement

The Court ruled that border officers did not need clear-and-convincing proof, at the moment a green-card holder re-entered the country, that he had committed a crime before treating him as a new applicant for admission rather than someone already admitted. The decision lets the government rely on evidence gathered later, at the removal hearing, to justify the earlier border decision — a result the dissent warns strips green-card holders of a key legal protection at the border.

2026-06-22

McCarthy v. Hernandez

The Supreme Court reversed a Second Circuit ruling that had granted habeas relief to Pedro Hernandez, convicted in the disappearance and killing of six-year-old Etan Patz, finding that no clearly established federal law required the trial judge to instruct the jury on the case Missouri v. Seibert. The decision reinforces tight limits on when federal courts may override state criminal convictions through habeas corpus, reminding lower courts that they may only step in when a state court's decision plainly contradicts a specific Supreme Court holding — not when a federal judge merely disagrees with how a state handled its own procedures.

habeas corpusMiranda rightscriminal confessionsEtan Patz casefederal courts and states

2026-06-18

Hunter v. United States Revisions: 6/19/26

plea bargainscriminal sentencingappeal waiverssupervised release conditionscriminal justice system

The Court ruled that a defendant's promise not to appeal his sentence can't be enforced if doing so would leave in place an egregious error that would embarrass the courts -- what the Court calls a 'miscarriage of justice.' It rejected the government's position that any knowing waiver must always be honored, and also rejected a lower-court rule that only let defendants appeal sentences that exceeded the legal maximum. The case now goes back to the appeals court to decide whether a mandatory-medication condition imposed on the defendant here actually qualifies as that kind of serious error. Because plea deals with appeal waivers cover roughly two-thirds of federal criminal cases, the ruling reshapes a legal tool used constantly across the federal system.

2026-06-18

T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation Revisions: 6/19/26