All Posts

Varun Mekala February 2026 In a unanimous decision released on January 14, 2026, the Supreme Court addressed a critical question at the intersection of public safety and privacy: When can the police enter your home without a warrant to save a life? The case, Case v. Montana, reaffirms that while a person’s home is their castle, that protection yields when there is an objectively reasonable belief that an emergency is unfolding inside. The case began with a 911 call from Willi

Varun Mekala February 2026 In a significant ruling delivered on January 20th, 2026, the Supreme Court addressed a long-standing debate regarding federal restitution, recompense for injury or loss. The Justices unanimously decided that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) is not only a tool in civil cases, but a form of criminal punishment too. The case centered on Holsey Ellingburg Jr., who had to pay $7,567.25 in restitution after a 1996 conviction.

Xylee Alvarez February 2026 Why his hypotheticals aren’t neutral and never have been  If I had to describe Justice Alito’s hypotheticals, I think I’d describe them as probing, engineered detours, designed to pull the Court away from the case it is actually deciding. Hearing them again and again just makes me see how less genuine his inquiries are.  Alito asks these hypotheticals to redefine the stakes.  A recent case where his hypotheticals were especially present was West Vi

Xylee Alvarez February 2026 What the Court’s 5-4 decision in Bowe v. United States reveals about justice and finality. Bowe v. United States is one of those cases where its kind of in the shadows of the criminal justice system, where procedure determines whethe a person ever gets heard again. Reading the justices opinions here, it becomes clear that this case is not just about statutory interpretation. It’s about how final a conviction really is, and who gets the power to say

Xylee Alvarez February 2026  The Justices' 9-0 ruling in Barrett v. United States  reveals their opinions on punishment and its limits.  Barrett v. United States was a case in which every justice agreed, which intrigues me because such cases require the Court to explain why a line exists, not simply where it is drawn. Rather than arguing over guilt or innocence, the justices focused on something more foundational in their opinion: whether the federal government can turn one a

Xylee Alvarez February 2026 In Berk v. Choy , the Supreme Court’s opinions shape who gets into federal court.  Throughout the week, I reviewed the court's recent opinions in Berk v. Choy, a technical case that appears to concern filing requirements. However, after reading the Justices' opinions, it has become clear that the decision of this case was about something bigger: who controls access to federal courts, and how easily claims can be dismissed before they are ever heard

Mathew Habib - Chief January 2026 Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the most influential legal figures in modern American history. Before joining the Supreme Court, she strategically dismantled gender discrimination through carefully selected cases, arguing that inequality harmed everyone—not just women. As a justice, she became known for her precise reasoning, unwavering commitment to equality, and powerful dissents that often shaped future legal and cultural conversations. For

Xylee Alvarez January 2026 The Court must decide whether states can nullify the right to public carry by declaring most places off-limits.  Few Supreme Court decisions have been as loudly proclaimed or as quietly resisted as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen . In Wolford v. Lopez , the Court now faced a stark question this week: Did Bruen  actually change Second Amendment law, or can states undo it by regulation?  At the core of this case is a Hawaii law that

Xylee Alvarez January 2026 The Court considers whether pension plans may change actuarial assumptions after the clock has run.  At first glance, M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund , sounds quite dry and technical. However, after following the case and hearing oral arguments, I learned that the Court was grappling with whether statutory timing requirements actually mean what they say, or whether they can be bent in favor of administrative conveni

Xylee Alvarez December 2025 Why NRSC v. FEC Feels Less About Campaign Finance and More About Judicial Unease The Supreme Court on Tuesday had to confront a question that one can never seem fully comfortable answering: how much political money is too much before it stops being speech and starts being distortion? Throughout the oral argument, doctrine, precedent, and silence were pulling in all different directions.  The case centers on a provision of federal campaign finance l

Xylee Alvarez December 2025 This week, the Supreme Court convened to hear a case that seemed like a deceptively small dispute but turned into a constitutional migraine the moment you took a peek under the hood. Here are the details. First Choice is a pro-life nonprofit running pregnancy resource centers. The State of New Jersey thought something didn’t smell right in 2023, mainly the fact that the organization’s donor messaging didn’t match its client-facing websites, and tha

Xylee Alvarez November 2025 Can “natural” really mean what consumers think it does?  The Supreme Court heard oral arguments about The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Podlaski, which   asks whether federal law, specifically the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), prevents consumers from suing food companies in state courts over allegedly misleading natural labels.  Hain Celestial, the maker of products like Celestial Seasonings teas and Earth’s Best organic foods, argues that f

Xylee Alvarez November 2025 Can a truly void judgment ever expire?  At its heart, Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton asks one deceptively simple question: if a court never had personal jurisdiction, can its judgment ever be too old to challenge? The petitioner, Coney Island Auto Parts, argues that a void judgment should be treated as if it never existed, so it can be challenged at any time, regardless of how many years have passed. On the other hand, the bankruptcy trust

Varun Mekala November 2025 This is not about boring legal statutes but about decades in a cell while the country around evolved. The Supreme Court has consolidated two explosive cases, Rutherford v. United States (24-820) and Carter v. United States (24-860), that together will determine whether federal judges can right a monumental wrong. The issue is a "compassionate release" statute that allows a judge to cut a sentence on the basis of "extraordinary and compelling reasons

Varun Mekala November 2025 In constitutional law, the biggest fights often start with the smallest, most personal details. This isn't about a complex theory; this is about a man, his faith, and his locks of hair. This is Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections (LA DOC), a pivotal case that tests the very meaning of religious liberty inside prison walls. The Louisiana Department of Corrections is a huge, bureaucratic machine that prioritizes order and discipline. For dec

Varun Mekala December 2025 We're going headfirst into a Supreme Court showdown that might just rewrite the very fundamentals of your right to challenge unconstitutional laws. It's not about one preacher and one Mississippi town; it's about each and every person who gets slapped with a local ordinance desiring to fight for their future speech. It is called Olivier v. City of Brandon (24-993) and it's an extremely complicated case. This is the scenario: Gabriel Olivier is an ev

Varun Mekala December 2025 Get ready for a legal drama that's setting Wall Street on edge! Rarely does the Supreme Court's docket feature cases that directly impact the daily skirmishes between high-powered hedge funds and corporate boards, but FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund (24-345) is just that. This isn't about esoteric law; this is about who gets to keep whom honest in the $30 trillion investment fund industry.  The core fight? Whether activist

Varun Mekala December 2025 A Supreme Court case is making headlines that has literal life-or-death implications, but what it’s really all about is how we, as a society, use our most fundamental Constitutional rights on behalf of our most vulnerable fellow human beings. It’s called Hamm v Smith (24-872), and it’s a fight that is so, so important.  Because what’s at the heart of this Supreme Court Case is essentially this: How do we, as a society, figure out whether a death row

Varun Mekala January 2026 Have you ever wondered if a bus is a “sovereign being”. No? Yeah, me neither, but the Supreme Court is finally giving us an answer to this riveting question. On January 14th, 2026, the court heard oral arguments for two cases that were consolidated together: Galette v. NJ Transit Corp. and NJ Transit Corp. v. Colt. At a glance, it seems this case is about traffic accidents. But under the hood, it’s about a twisted question that could affect American

Varun Mekala January 2026 Drama in Washington is at an all time high, and Trump vs. Cook  has just turned it up a notch. Here’s a breakdown of the most high-stakes firing in recent American history. Let’s set the scene. In August 2025, President Trump took to social media to announce he is kicking Governor Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board.The reason? He’s digging up old allegations of mortgage fraud from 2021, way before she started the job. Here’s the problem, Federa