The High Court Report

United States v. Hemani | Oral Argument: 3/2/2026 | Case No. 24-1234 | Docket Link: Here
Overview: Constitutional challenge to federal law criminalizing firearm possession by marijuana users tests Supreme Court's new historical framework for gun regulations after millions potentially face prosecution.
Question Presented: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent
Posture: Fifth Circuit granted summary affirmance dismissing prosecution; government appeals seeking reversal.
Main Arguments:
• Government (Petitioner): (1) Founding-era laws restricting "habitual drunkards" provide historical precedent supporting marijuana user disarmament; (2) Circuit courts split on constitutional analysis requiring Supreme Court intervention; (3) Section 925(c) relief process addresses constitutional concerns through administrative remedies
• Hemani (Respondent): (1) Government's historical analogues fail Bruen-Rahimi "why" and "how" requirements for constitutional restrictions; (2) No genuine circuit split exists warranting Supreme Court review; (3) Administrative relief cannot cure fundamental constitutional violations
Implications:
Government victory enables continued prosecution of millions combining legal state marijuana use with lawful firearm ownership, expanding congressional power over combined legal activities. Hemani victory requires narrow tailoring of federal gun restrictions, potentially invalidating broad categorical prohibitions lacking specific historical justification and forcing legislative reconsideration of drug user firearm restrictions.
The Fine Print:
• 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3): "It shall be unlawful for any person...who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance...to...possess...any firearm"
• Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Primary Cases:
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022): Government must demonstrate historical tradition supporting firearm regulations through relevantly similar "why" and "how" justifications from founding era
• United States v. Rahimi (2024): Historical analogues need not provide "historical twin" but must address comparable problems through similar regulatory approaches under constitutional analysis
Oral Advocates:
For Petitioner (United States): Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice argues for Petitioner United States.
For Respondent (Hemani): Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy, PLLC argues for Respondent Hemani.

Timestamps:
[00:00:00] Case Preview
[00:01:02] Oral Argument Begins
[00:01:08] United States Opening Statement
[00:03:09] United States Free for All Questions
[00:26:14] United States Round Robin Questions
[01:00:32] Hemani Opening Statement
[01:02:37] Hemani Free for All Questions
[01:31:01] Hemani Round Robin Questions
[01:50:46] United States Rebuttal

Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal | Case No. 24-758 | Oral Argument Date: 11/10/25 | Docket Link: Here
Overview
Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Geo Group versus Menocal, which examines whether derivative sovereign immunity creates a fast-pass to appeal. Detainees sue a private contractor running an ICE facility, claiming forced labor—the company says "the government told me to do it" and wants to skip straight to appeal after the trial court found that the contractor held no derivative sovereign immunity. Must government contractors face years of expensive, potentially politically-motivated litigation first, or can they appeal immediately?
Oral Advocates:
For Petitioner (GEO Group): Dominic E. Draye, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent (Menocal): Jennifer D. Bennett, San Francisco, California.
For United States as Amicus Curiae (Supporting Respondent): Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Holding: Parties cannot immediately appeal pretrial orders denying derivative sovereign immunity.
Result: Affirmed.
Voting Breakdown: Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson joined, and in which Justice Thomas joined as to Parts I and III. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Link to Opinion: Here.

Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Date Decided: 2/24/26 | Oral Argument Date: 11/4/25 | Docket Link: Here
Overview
Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Hain Celestial Group versus Palmquist, a forum fight about when courts keep cases they never should have had. A Texas family sued two companies over their child's heavy metal poisoning from baby food—but after a federal court wrongly kicked out one defendant and ran a two-week trial, an appeals court said the case never belonged in federal court, forcing everyone back to square one.
Questions Presented:
Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.
Whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a nondiverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim.

Holding: Because the federal trial court wrongly dismissed Whole Foods Market, the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Result: Affirmed.
Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
For Petitioner (Hain and Whole Foods): Sarah E. Harrington, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent (Palmquist): Russell S. Post, Houston, Texas

United States v. Hemani reaches far beyond marijuana policy. This case forces the Supreme Court to answer a fundamental question: Can the government strip Second Amendment rights without clearly defining who loses them?
Adeel Bashir joins The High Court Report to break down this high-stakes case. Adeel works as Federal Public and Community Defenders Sentencing Resource Counsel and defended numerous clients charged under this exact statute.
Adeel explains the case from each angle then widens the lens. Controlled substances under federal law include Adderall, Xanax, cough medicine, and supplements common in gyms across America. Millions of Americans could fall within the statute's reach without ever knowing it.
But the stakes cut both directions. The government argues that courts should defer to congressional judgment about which groups pose risks; a principle that, if accepted, preserves legislative flexibility to address evolving public safety concerns. Adeel walks through Congress' power to classify conduct as dangerous while noting that other prohibited-person categories may face similar challenges.
Something must give. The Court's reasoning here will define Second Amendment battles for years. You don't want to miss this episode.
Oral arguments take place Monday, March 2nd. To learn more about the case, check out The High Court Report case preview: Here.
Connect with Adeel Bashir on LinkedIn: Here.

Postal Service v. Konan | Case No. 24-351 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25 | Opinion Date: 2/24/26
Overview
Today we break down the February 24, 2026 Supreme Court opinion in United States Postal Service versus Konan. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the postal exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act shields the government even when postal workers deliberately refuse to deliver your mail—not just when they mess up accidentally.
Justice Thomas wrote for the majority. Justice Sotomayor fired back with a sharp dissent, accusing the majority of handing the Postal Service blanket immunity that Congress never intended to give.
Link to Docket: Here
Case Preview: Here
Question Presented: Whether a plaintiff can sue the postal service for intentional mail nondelivery where the statute at issue (the Federal Tort Claims Act) permits lawsuits for "loss", "miscarriage", and "negligent transmission".
Holding: The United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail because both “miscarriage” and “loss” of mail under the FTCA’s postal exception can occur as a result of the Postal Service’s intentional failure to deliver the mail.
Result: Vacated.
Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson joined.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
For Petitioner: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent: Easha Anand, Menlo Park, Ca.