The High Court Report

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.

Overview
The Pung family lost their $194,400 home over a $2,242 tax bill — a tax bill they never owed. Isabella County auctioned the home for $76,000 and returned only $73,766. The family lost over $118,000 in home equity.
Question: Can local governments pay a person their home’s auction price or their home’s fair market value when the government auctions the home at a foreclosure sale?
Background: The Pung family lost $194,400 home over $2,242 tax bill they never owed. Isabella County auctioned the home, fetching $76,000. Pung family received only $73,766 back.
Pung Argues: Counties must give fair market value as compensation when government takes property, not whatever an auction produces. Losing $118,000 over $2,242 creates grossly disproportionate punishment violating Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause.
Isabella County Argues: Just compensation means what someone pays at a free and fair auction. No penalty exists, the Pungs lost only difference between auction price and debt.
Stakes: If Pung wins: Property owners get market value from forced home sales regardless of what a person pays at an auction. If Isabella County wins: property owners risk losing home equity over small, disputed, but unpaid property taxes.
Oral Advocates:
For Petitioner (Pung): Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC.
United States as Amicus Curiae: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice.
For Respondent (Isabella County, Michigan): Matthew Nelson of Warner Norcross and Judd.

Link to Opinion: TBD.
Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.
Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.
Timestamps:
[00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview
[00:01:11] Oral Argument Begins
[00:01:20] Pung Opening Statement
[00:02:58] Pung Free for All Questions
[00:26:21] Pung Round Robin Questions
[00:51:09] United States Opening Statement
[00:52:18] United States Free for All Questions
[00:59:56] United States Round Robin Questions
[01:19:40] Isabella County Opening Statement
[01:21:46] Isabella County Free for All Questions
[01:39:59] Isabella County Round Robin Questions
[01:43:00] Pung Rebuttal