All Posts

Mathew Habib - Chief January 2026 I’ve read a lot about Trump v. United States , and honestly, this decision feels like a slap in the face to the principle of checks and balances. The Supreme Court didn’t break the system entirely, but they tainted it in a way that makes presidential power harder to hold accountable — and that should worry everyone. Here’s the background: the case centered on whether a sitting or former president can be criminally prosecuted for actions taken

Mathew Habib - Chief January 2026 When people talk about the Supreme Court, they often frame it as a simple split between conservatives and liberals. In reality, some of the most important decisions come down to just a few justices who do not always vote the same way. These are the Court’s swing justices. Right now, the most influential swing justices are Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts. That does not mean they are moderates. It means their

Mathew Habib - Chief January 2026 When people ask who the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court is, they usually expect a single name. But the truth is more nuanced. Right now, the Court’s liberal wing is led by three justices: Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The real question is not whether they are liberal, but how they express that liberalism. If we were to rank these justices from least to most liberal, the order would be Justice Elena Kagan,

Mathew Habib - Chief January 2026 When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the Supreme Court, history was made. She became the first Black woman to ever sit on the Court. That matters. But what stands out to me most is not the milestone itself. It is how she approaches the role. When I listen to Justice Jackson during oral arguments, I notice that her questions consistently focus on impact. She asks what a ruling will actually do once it leaves the courtroom. Who will be aff

Xylee Alvarez January 2026 The Supreme Court considers whether a state may exclude a transgender girl from school sports simply for being who she is.  The Supreme Court recently heard the case of B.P.J., a transgender girl who wanted to do something completely ordinary: play on her middle school’s girls’ sports teams. She is no professional athlete, nor dominating competition, she’s a child who wants to participate in school sports alongside her peers. However, West Virginia

Xylee Alvarez January 2026 The Supreme Court confronts whether the Constitution protects individuals who fall outside legislative averages or leaves them behind.  This week, the Supreme Court heard a case of unmistakable gravity. Little v. Hecox arrived with fear, anger, and the very real sense that the Court is being asked to draw a line that will shape lives for decades to come. At the center of the case is Idaho’s law barring transgender women from competing on women’s spo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civil rights are a cornerstone of democracy, shaping the lives of individuals and communities across the United States. The Supreme Court...

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) plays a crucial role in shaping the laws that govern our lives. For many young people,...