The Supreme Court granted the Government's applications for partial stays of three universal injunctions that had blocked enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160 on birthright citizenship. The Court held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789, and limited the injunctions to provide relief only to the named plaintiffs. The Court did not address the constitutionality of the Executive Order itself.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court held that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers whose appointment by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is consistent with the Appointments Clause. The Court found that Task Force members are subject to the Secretary's supervision and direction through the Secretary's authority to remove them at will and to review and block their recommendations before they take effect. The Court also determined that Congress properly vested appointment authority in the Secretary through two statutes: the 1999 law giving the AHRQ Director power to "convene" the Task Force (which includes appointment power) and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966 (ratified by Congress in 1984), which transfers the Director's functions to the Secretary.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court dug into a tricky question about who gets to set fees on phone and internet companies to pay for universal service programs. At issue was whether Congress handed too much lawmaking power to the Federal Communications Commission, and then whether the FCC handed too much of its power to a private group that crunches the numbers. Justice Kagan, writing for the Court’s majority, said Congress gave clear instructions on how to calculate those fees and that the FCC still calls the final shots.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

This case turned on a key detail in the law: it only places a small hurdle on adults, while giving the state room to protect kids from seeing explicit material online.

Texas passed a law that says certain websites with sexually explicit content need to check IDs or use data from a purchase to confirm you’re at least 18. The Supreme Court’s majority said that requirement touches adults’ speech only lightly. Under a middle‐of‐the‐road level of review, the law meets the test because it serves Texas’s important goal of keeping children from exposure to harmful material.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court took up a subtle question about who gets the benefit of newer, lighter penalties under a law called the First Step Act. The question wasn’t a big headline grabber—it was about whether a prison term counts as “imposed” if a judge later wiped it away. By limiting retroactivity to those without valid sentences on the Act’s effective date, Congress balanced the general presumption against retroactivity, the interest in finality of judgments, and the bipartisan goal of ending disproportionate “stacking” of firearm sentences that had resulted in extreme prison terms.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Court held that the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The Court determined that the provision lacks the required clear rights-creating language necessary for individuals to bring private enforcement actions against state officials. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

Ruben Gutierrez wanted to test DNA evidence in his case after his conviction, but Texas law put up a high wall. The state said you have to prove you’re innocent before you can even ask for new DNA testing. That rule wasn’t about whether the test would show who did it, but about who gets to make the request in the first place. This approach reflects Texas’s legislative choice to reserve DNA testing primarily for challenges to wrongful convictions, rather than to reduce capital sentences for those who participated in the crime but may not have been the actual killer.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras