top of page
All Posts


Beyond the Label: The Supreme Court Weighs In on What’s Natural
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 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 federal la
Mathew Habib
Nov 92 min read


When Speech Becomes “Treatment”: The Free Speech Stakes in Chiles v. Salazar
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
Mathew Habib
Nov 92 min read


Can You Hit 'Pause' on Freedom? My Take on Rico v. United States
Verun Mekala I've been following a case that just went before the Supreme Court-Rico v. United States-and it's one of those fascinating cases that seem minute until you look into it. At a glance, this case is about a woman, Isabel Rico, who was on supervised release, which is like the new version of parole. She was serving 42 months that ended in June 2021. In 2018, she absconded. She just left. She had been a fugitive for almost five years until she was arrested in January 2
Mathew Habib
Nov 93 min read


This Supreme Court Case Makes My Blood Boil. It Should Make Yours, Too.
Varun Mekala I just read about a case in front of the Supreme Court, Hencely v. Fluor Corp, and to be honest, it’s one of those most infuriating legal cases. This case involves a U.S. soldier, Specialist Winston Hencely, who was severely injured in a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. He is a hero. He saw the bomber approaching a crowd gathered for a Veterans Day 5K race, confronted him, and was grabbing him when the man detonated his vest. Hencely's acti
Mathew Habib
Nov 92 min read


Restitution or Retaliation?
Xylee Alvarez Oct 2025 The Supreme Court weighs whether or not criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause? The Supreme Court touches on criminal restitution in Ellingburg v. United States . The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ellingburg v. United States , a pivotal case examining whether the retroactive application of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) constitutes a criminal punishmen
Mathew Habib
Oct 193 min read


The High Court’s Gatekeeping Challenge in Bowe v. United States
Xylee Alvarez Oct 2025 Does Congress’s ban on second or successive filings for federal inmates block the Supreme Court from review or even the inmate’s access to the courts? The Supreme Court heard arguments in Bowe v. United States , a case at the intersection of federal habeas law, statutory interpretation, and access to justice. The questions before the court are two-fold: first, whether 18 USC § 2244 (b)(1), which bars claims in a second or successive corpus application
Mathew Habib
Oct 193 min read


One Crime, Two Sentences?
Xylee Alvarez Oct 2025 The Supreme Court considers whether punishing a defendant twice for one fatal shooting violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. On October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Barrett v. United States , a case that raises an age-old constitutional question: how many times can someone be punished for the same act? The court is now being asked to decide whether giving two separate penalties for one lethal shooting violates the Double Jeopardy Clause
Mathew Habib
Oct 193 min read


When Speech Becomes “Treatment”: The Free Speech Stakes in Chiles v. Salazar
Xylee Alvarez Oct 2025 When Speech Becomes “Treatment”: The Free Speech Stakes in Chiles v. Salazar The Supreme Court faces a defining test on whether states can ban conversations in therapy that express disfavored moral or religious views. The question of whether or not Colorado's law banning “conversion therapy” violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was posed in court on October 7th, taking this case beyond just “therapy”. While hearing the oral argument
Mathew Habib
Oct 193 min read


More Executive Power... Yay?
Varun Mekala The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could significantly impact how far federal immunity goes when it comes to essential government services. In United States Postal Service v. Konan, a Texas property owner, Lebene Konan, alleges that postal workers intentionally refused to deliver mail to two rental properties she owns — and that this misconduct was racially motivated. She filed a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which gen
Mathew Habib
Oct 192 min read


Is SCOTUS about to legalize Conversion Therapy?
Varun Mekala In Chiles v. Salazar, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a historic First Amendment case that could revolutionize how licensed professionals are regulated by states. Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who is licensed in Colorado, is challenging the state prohibition against so-called "conversion therapy" for minors. Colorado's statute makes it illegal for licensed counselors to provide therapy aimed at changing a child's sexual orientation or gender identity. Ch
Mathew Habib
Oct 192 min read


SCOTUS Poised to strike down Second Clause of Voting Rights Act
Varun Mekala On Wednesday October 15th, the Supreme Court heard Louisiana v. Callais (24-109) and Robinson v. Callais (24-110). Two distinct cases that have been combined by the Supreme Court because they challenge the same lower court ruling. The question central to this case is as follows: does a State’s creation of a second minority-majority district violate the 14th and 15th amendment? Let’s dive right in. To understand this case we need to understand the precedent set i
Mathew Habib
Oct 192 min read


Is the 4th Amendment at risk?
Varun Mekala The 2025 Supreme Court case of Case v. Montana (450 U.S. 544), concerning William Trevor Case, is a recent examination of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. At its core, the dispute focused on the standard police must meet to justify a warrantless entry into a private residence under the "emergency aid" exception. The case originated when police in Anaconda, Montana, responded to an urgent call regarding a man threatenin
Mathew Habib
Oct 192 min read


Insights on Civil Rights from SCOTUS Blog
Civil rights are a cornerstone of democracy, shaping the lives of individuals and communities across the United States. The Supreme Court...
Mathew Habib
Jul 294 min read


Youthful Perspectives on SCOTUS Cases
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) plays a crucial role in shaping the laws that govern our lives. For many young people,...
Mathew Habib
Jul 294 min read


Supreme Court Case Analyses and Commentary
The Supreme Court of the United States plays a crucial role in shaping the laws and rights that govern our society. Each case it hears...
Mathew Habib
Jul 293 min read
bottom of page

