Skip to content
EMERGENCY DOCKET

Supreme Court pauses district court order preventing immigrants from being deported to third-party countries

By Amy Howe on June 23 at 6:18 pm

The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold a district court order that had stopped the government from removing immigrants to countries not identified in their removal orders. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority was granting the government “emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied.”

Scaffolding in front of the Supreme Court building on a sunny day

The plaintiffs in the case are four undocumented immigrants with deportation orders. (Katie Barlow)

SCOTUS NEWS

Court to decide whether government officials can be held personally liable for violating inmate’s religious liberty

By Amy Howe on June 23 at 12:41 pm

The justices agreed to hear a case on whether government officials can be sued in their individual capacity for violating a prisoner’s religious liberty rights. The court declined to review the case of a person scheduled to be executed on Wednesday.

OPINION ANALYSIS

Court allows lawsuits by U.S. victims of overseas terrorist attacks to move forward

By Amy Howe on June 20 at 1:24 pm

A unanimous court held that the lawsuits, which are made possible by a 2019 law called the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, do not violate the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

VIEW FROM THE COURT

Just the Fax

By Mark Walsh on June 20 at 5:30 pm

The courtroom appeared a bit empty on Friday as the justices issued six opinions. Two came from Justice Barrett, two from Justice Kavanaugh, one from Justice Gorsuch, and one from the chief, with much ado about faxes.

Newsletter Sign Up

Receive email updates, legal news, and original reporting from SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch.

More news

WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, June 24

By Zachary Shemtob on June 24, 2025

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

Coming up: On Thursday, June 26, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We’ll be live at 9:30 a.m. EDT that day for the opinion(s).

WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Monday, June 23

By Zachary Shemtob on June 23, 2025

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read:

Coming up: On Thursday, June 26, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We’ll be live at 9:30 a.m. EDT that day for the opinion(s).

OPINIONS OVERVIEW

Additional opinions from Friday, June 20

By SCOTUSblog on June 20, 2025

On Friday, June 20, the Supreme Court also released the following opinions:

— In Esteras v. United States, the justices considered whether courts weighing a revocation of supervised release should address certain sentencing factors, such as retribution, that are not listed in the law concerning supervised release but that are part of the law governing sentencing. 

Continue Reading
OPINION ANALYSIS

Supreme Court prevents retired firefighter from suing former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act

By Amy Howe on June 20, 2025

The Supreme Court on Friday shut down efforts by a retired Florida firefighter to sue her former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act. By a vote of 8-1, the justices ruled that Karyn Stanley, who was forced to retire in 2018 because of Parkinson’s disease, cannot challenge the termination of her health insurance after she retired.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, writing that the court’s decision “renders meaningless” the protections provided in the ADA “for disabled workers’ retirement benefits just when those protections matter most.”

Continue Reading
Opinion Analysis

Court rules that e-cigarette retailers can seek judicial review in the 5th Circuit

By Amy Howe on June 20, 2025

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a challenge by retailers to the Food and Drug Administration’s denial of an application by R.J. Reynolds Vapor to market e-cigarettes can go forward in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in Louisiana. By a vote of 7-2, the justices ruled that retailers in Texas and Mississippi that sell RJR Vapor’s e-cigarette products have a legal right to seek judicial review of the FDA’s denial. R.J. Reynolds Vapor, which is based in North Carolina, joined that lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, where the retailers are based.

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, “any person adversely affected” by the FDA’s denial of a request to market a new tobacco product can “file a petition for judicial review” of that denial “with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or for the circuit in which such person resides or has their principal place of business.” For RJR Vapor, this would mean filing its petition in either the D.C. Circuit or in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which includes North Carolina. But that court of appeals had already turned down other challenges to the FDA’s rejections of applications to sell e-cigarette products, so RJR Vapor went instead to the 5th Circuit, joined by Avail Vapor, a Texas retailer that sells its products, and by a trade association for gas stations and convenience stores in Mississippi that sell its products.

Continue Reading