On Monday, March 2, we were live as the court heard argument in United States v. Hemani, on whether a federal statute that prohibits gun possession by users of illegal drugs violates the Second Amendment.

In Hunter v. United States, to be argued on Tuesday, March 3, the Supreme Court will address how broad federal defendants’ waivers of their right to appeal can be and the effect of a district court’s statement at sentencing that the defendant may appeal when he previously agreed to an appellate waiver.

Updated on March 2 at 5:55 p.m.

In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, to be argued on Wednesday, March 4, the court will consider whether a federal law initially designed to deal with state trucking regulations supersedes state common-law claims holding freight brokers liable for negligently selecting dangerous motor carriers or drivers. That may not sound particularly fascinating, but the issue before the court, which involves the scope of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, could have broad liability implications for transportation logistics and the freight broker industry.

The argument yesterday in Pung v. Isabella Countyhad two distinct threads. On the one hand, the justices who discussed the question presented seemed to have no doubt that they would reject the idea that the customary practice of selling real estate at an auction to recover delinquent taxes amounts to a taking without just compensation. On the other hand, multiple justices were incensed at what appeared to them to be the high-handed treatment of the taxpayer by the local government.

Clear Statements is a recurring series by Abbe R. Gluck on civil litigation and the modern regulatory and statutory state.

The Supreme Court’s decision striking down the president’s tariffs last week is generating a lot of chatter in wonky circles about the inside-baseball debate among the justices about the “major questions” rule. All seven of the opinions in the case mention the rule – the judicial presumption that Congress doesn’t delegate big questions to the executive branch without being clear – and each takes a different position. But the debate is a lot more “major” than that. A storm has been brewing at the court about nearly all of the interpretive presumptions that courts use when construing statutes, known as the “canons” of interpretation. It just hasn’t been widely noticed yet. The debate last week offers a mere harbinger of more drama and doctrinal shifts to come. As Justice Neil Gorsuch put it in his opinion, the emergence of these differences among the justices presents “an interesting turn of events. Each camp warrants a visit.”