Year
Issue Area
Court
2026
Choice Refrigerants v. EPA
Question Presented
Whether Congress violated the Vesting Clause of Article I by giving an executive agency unbounded discretion to choose which private parties are entitled to participate in a multibillion-dollar market.
2026
The Babylon Bee v. Bonta
Question Presented
Whether a California law that required large online platforms to police digitally created or modified political speech (so-called “deepfakes”) hosted on their platforms and remove them; label them as “materially deceptive content”; and provide a reporting mechanism to report content for removal or labeling, violates Section 230.
2026
Pheasant v. United States
Question Presented
Whether the Federal Land Policy and Management Act violates the nondelegation doctrine by giving the Executive near-unfettered power to define what conduct is subject to criminal punishment.
2026
Chatrie v. United States
Question Presented
Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
2026
E.D. v. Noblesville School District
Question Presented
Whether Hazelwood applies (1) whenever student speech might be erroneously attributed to the school, as the Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have held; (2) when student speech occurs in the context of an “organized and structured educational activity,” as the Third Circuit has held; or (3) only when student speech is part of the “curriculum,” as the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have held.
2026
Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce
Question Presented
Does the Magnuson-Stevens Act give the National Marine Fisheries Service the authority to require that certain fishermen pay the salaries of agency-approved at-sea monitors, and did the district court properly apply Loper Bright’s independent, best-judgment interpretive standard?
2026
Hirsch et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Question Presented
Whether the Internal Revenue Code violates the Seventh Amendment and Article III by authorizing the IRS to order the payment of monetary penalties for fraud without providing the taxpayer a jury trial.
2025
The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service
Question Presented
Whether exacting scrutiny governs a First Amendment challenge to 26 U.S.C. § 6033(b)(5)’s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their “substantial contributors.
2025
Canna Provisions Inc. v. Bondi
Question Presented
(1) Should the Court overrule Raich’s holding that Congress can regulate purely local economic activity if there is any “rational basis” that such activity substantially affects interstate commerce? (2) Has Congress validly prohibited the purely local growing, distribution, and possession of state-regulated marijuana under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause?
2025
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
Question Presented
When it is obvious that a government official’s conduct violates the Constitution under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, is the violation clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity despite some factual distinctions that are irrelevant under the governing constitutional rule?
2025
Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. ATF
Question Presented
Does a federal court enjoy equitable authority under the Freedom of Information Act to order the return or destruction of records released by an agency, even when such disclosure is allegedly inadvertent, and can it also prohibit further use or dissemination of such records by their recipient.
2025
In re Liam M.
Question Presented
Does a family court order, which authorizes Child Services to enter and search an innocent mother’s home and supervise her parenting, violate the mother’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches?
Amicus Commentary
- All
In Uzuegbunam, the Supreme Court validates nominal damages as a means of protecting constitutional rights
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s March 8, 2021, ruling in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, No. 19-968, that a claim for nominal damages is enough to maintain standing, plaintiffs’ ability to seek vindication in court for infringement of speech rights is secure, even where the plaintiff cannot prove monetary harm. As Casey Mattox and I recently wrote…
Americans for Prosperity Foundation and yes. every kid. file brief in Supreme Court educational freedom case
Every kid needs and deserves a quality education — one that provides them with essential skills and helps them find and develop their talents and interests. Our nation’s education system should be flexible and responsive enough to support students as they identify the subjects and practices that engage them and drive their passion. That’s the…
Narrow question in Supreme Court campus speech case has broad First Amendment implications
The Supreme Court hears oral argument today in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, addressing whether “a government’s post-filing change of an unconstitutional policy moots nominal-damages claims that vindicate the government’s past, completed violation of a plaintiff’s constitutional right.” Translation? The justices are deciding whether people whose rights have been violated should have their day in court even…
SCOTUS has chance to clarify the muddy waters of takings jurisprudence in Cedar Point v. Hassid
From before the founding, the “fundamental maxims of a free government [have] seem[ed] to require, that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.” The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment exists to protect those sacred rights from unfettered state appropriation by requiring: first, that any taking of private property be…
Supreme Court should protect citizens’ rights to freely access U.S. waters
When Jim and Cliff Courtney sought to offer private boat transportation so customers could conveniently access their businesses — including Stehekin Valley Ranch, with cabins and a lodge house in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area — the state of Washington denied their right to do so unless the Courtneys could prove the existing ferry…
Supreme Court unanimously rules FTC must comply with the law
Today, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer that the Federal Trade Commission must comply with the law and end its ultra vires pursuit of money damages. The opinion presents a straightforward statutory interpretation of the scope of FTC enforcement power under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which allows…