Skip to content
OPINION ANALYSIS

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

By Amy Howe on June 20 at 1:30 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.

supremecourt

The dispute centered on the question of personal jurisdiction: whether courts have the authority to hear a lawsuit against particular defendants. (Katie Barlow)

OPINION ANALYSIS

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

By Amy Howe on June 20 at 3:40 pm

In a splintered decision, the Supreme Court did not allow a retired firefighter to sue her prior employer under the ADA. The majority opinion, written by Justice Gorsuch, determined the retiree was not a “qualified individual” under the law. In dissent, Justice Jackson called the majority opinion “counterintuitive.”

OPINION ANALYSIS

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

By Amy Howe on June 20 at 1:58 pm

On Friday, the Supreme Court opined on a challenge by retailers of e-cigarettes to an FDA decision. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that the challengers were “adversely affected” by the FDA’s decision and could thus seek judicial review in the 5th Circuit.

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 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
WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Friday, June 20

By Zachary Shemtob on June 20, 2025

We’re expecting one or more opinions from the court at 10 a.m. EDT. Join us for the live blog, beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday 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).

RELIST WATCH

RLUIPA personal liability and Bivens on the brink

By John Elwood on June 19, 2025

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

The end of the Supreme Court’s term is in sight – the court is down to its last undecided merits cases and its last regularly scheduled conference will be held next week. While there is usually one impromptu mop-up conference after that to resolve all the unfinished cert-stage business, we’re close to the end. And the court is doing its part by clearing out all the unresolved relists before the term draws to a close. This week, the court cleared out two returning relists by granting review for next term. We had eight-time relist First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkinpreviewed here, involving whether a group of faith-based pregnancy centers can go to federal court to resolve their claim that their First Amendment rights were chilled by a state’s civil investigative demand into their fundraising practices, or rather if they must address their claim through ongoing state proceedings. I suspect that one of the justices was writing an opinion dissenting from denial of cert and it was persuasive enough to dislodge enough votes to grant review. And the court also granted review in two-time relist Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisianapreviewed here, addressing whether state-court suits Louisiana parishes brought against oil companies for coastal restoration belong in federal court because some of the damage from oil exploration was done at the request of federal officials during World War II. With those cases cleared out, now just two returning relists remain.

Continue Reading