The High Court Report

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish | Oral Argument Date: 1/12/26 | Docket Link: Here Question Presented: Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statuteOverview: Oil companies that fueled WWII fighter planes face $744.6 million in state court verdicts for 80-year-old production methods, creating unprecedented federal contractor liability exposure with massive removal jurisdiction implications.Posture: Fifth Circuit denied en banc rehearing by narrow 7-6 vote after split panel affirmed remand.Main Arguments:• Chevron (Petitioner): (1) 2011 amendment eliminated causal-nexus requirement through "relating to" language expansion; (2) Fifth Circuit improperly reinstated contractual-direction test rejected by other circuits; (3) Oil production activities directly connected to federal avgas contracts through pricing terms and wartime regulations• Louisiana (Respondent): (1) No genuine circuit split exists among courts applying "connection or association" standard; (2) Case lacks national importance beyond fact-specific contractor disputes; (3) Federal contracts remained silent about production methods, requiring sufficient connection between challenged conduct and federal directivesImplications: Chevron victory expands federal contractor protection from state court liability for activities connected to federal work, potentially encouraging emergency contracting. Louisiana victory maintains state environmental enforcement authority while exposing federal contractors to massive local jury verdicts for wartime activities.The Fine Print:• 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1): "A civil action...commenced in a State court against...any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States...for or relating to any act under color of such office...may be removed"• State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act: Requires compliance with environmental standards for oil and gas operations in Louisiana coastal zonePrimary Cases:• Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (5th Cir. 2020): Post-2011 amendment abandoned "causal nexus" test, replacing with "connected or associated with" standard demonstrating expanded federal-officer removal scope• Watson v. Philip Morris Cos. (4th Cir. 2007): Federal contractor removal permitted without explicit contractual direction for challenged conduct, supporting broad interpretation of "relating to" language

OVERVIEWDecember delivered constitutional chaos with two emergency Supreme Court cases and a preview of January's landmark docket. From federal agents facing $10,000 bounties in Chicago to immigration judges exposing government corruption, plus six blockbuster cases that could reshape American law for decades.Featured Cases:• Trump v. Illinois - Presidential emergency powers meet federalism• Margolin v. NAIJ - Immigration judges challenge speech restrictions• January Preview - Six constitutional blockbusters including transgender sports, gun rights, and executive authorityChevron v. Plaquemines - $744M WWII contractor liabilityLittle v. Hecox - Idaho transgender sports ban vs. equality rightsCSX Galette v. NJ Transit - State corporation sovereign immunityWolford v. Lopez - Hawaii gun permits vs. Second AmendmentM&K Employee Solutions v. IAM - $4.4M pension timing disputeTrump v. Cook - Presidential removal of Fed GovernorKey Moments:• Supreme Court denies emergency stays in both cases within one week• Federal agents operate under bounties during immigration enforcement• Fourth Circuit orders discovery into corrupted government complaint systems• January docket threatens to reshape constitutional rights for a generationEpisode Highlights:• $10,000 bounties placed on federal immigration officers• Texas National Guard deployed to Illinois over state objections• Immigration judges may bypass internal procedures to challenge speech restrictions• Six January cases spanning Second Amendment, transgender equality, sovereign immunity, executive authority, pension law, and WWII contractor liability• Constitutional decisions affecting daily life from mortgage rates to athletic participationStakes: These cases determine the balance between presidential emergency powers and federalism, federal employee speech rights versus government control, and fundamental constitutional protections that affect millions of Americans.Major Questions:• Can presidents deploy military domestically without meeting rebellion standards?• Can government silence employees then force them through corrupted complaint processes?• Will January cases reshape constitutional law for the next thirty years?Bottom Line: December's emergency cases and January's preview demonstrate how Supreme Court decisions directly impact daily American life - from federal law enforcement to mortgage rates to constitutional rights.Call to Action: Share this episode with someone who thinks Supreme Court cases don't affect daily life - because these decisions determine everything from your mortgage rate to fundamental constitutional protections.Connect:• Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube: Search "The High Court Report"• LinkedIn: @TheHighCourtReport• Questions: LinkedIn or Email ([email protected])

This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.Today's case is United States v. Skrmetti. I chose this case to segue into the 2026 Supreme Court calendar. In January, the Supreme Court hears two transgender cases that in some ways offshoot from Skrmetti. Here are a few details on these cases. We'll be sure to preview these cases soon. Also, check out our July 7th Roundup episode for more details.Transgender Sports CasesLittle v. Hecox (Idaho) | Case No. 24-38 | Docket Link: HereBackground: Idaho's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" banning transgender women from women's sports teamsKey Player: Lindsay Hecox, transgender student at Boise State UniversityNinth Circuit Reasoning: Applied heightened scrutiny; found likely Equal Protection violationsPost-Skrmetti Impact: How the medical treatment precedent affects sports participationWest Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-43 | Docket Link: HereBackground: West Virginia's H.B. 3293 categorical sports banKey Player: B.P.J., 14-year-old transgender student with amended birth certificateUnique Factors: Puberty blockers, competitive performance, individual circumstancesFourth Circuit's Approach: Case-by-case analysis vs. categorical rulesStrategic Litigation: Why B.P.J. argued for waiting on Skrmetti decisionHere's the background on United States v. Skrmetti.Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB1) in 2023, prohibiting healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to minors for treating gender dysphoria or helping them transition, while still allowing these treatments for other medical conditions like congenital defects or precocious puberty. Three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor sued under the Equal Protection Clause, with a district court initially blocking the law after finding transgender individuals deserve heightened constitutional protection. The Sixth Circuit reversed, ruling the law only needed to meet the lowest constitutional standard (rational basis review), prompting the Supreme Court to take the case.The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the law classifies based on age and medical use rather than sex or transgender status, requiring only rational basis review which the law satisfies.Analysis (3 sentences): The Court rejected arguments that the law discriminates based on sex, finding that it applies

This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.Today's episode is FEC v. Cruz. I chose this case for the interplay with a case this term, NRSC v. FEC. Listen to the arguments regarding standing, free speech, and political corruption. Here's the story of FEC v. Cruz.Senator Ted Cruz loaned $260,000 to his 2018 reelection campaign, but federal law limits candidates to recovering only $250,000 from post-election contributions, leaving Cruz unable to recover the final $10,000. Cruz and his campaign committee sued the Federal Election Commission, arguing this loan repayment restriction in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violates the First Amendment by deterring candidates from self-funding their campaigns. The case centered on whether limiting post-election contributions for loan repayment serves a legitimate anti-corruption purpose or unconstitutionally burdens political speech.The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the federal law limiting candidates to recovering $250,000 in personal loans from post-election contributions violates the First Amendment because the government failed to prove this restriction prevents actual corruption or its appearance.The Court applied strict scrutiny to this campaign finance restriction, requiring the government to demonstrate the law prevents "quid pro quo" corruption with actual evidence rather than mere speculation—which the FEC could not provide despite most states having no such limits. The majority emphasized that restricting loan repayment creates barriers to entry for new candidates and challengers who rely on personal loans to fund competitive campaigns. The dissenters argued the majority was too demanding in requiring concrete evidence of corruption, warning that weakening campaign finance laws could increase the influence of wealthy donors and undermine electoral integrity.

Episode Throwback: The Levers of PowerCase: Trump v. United States | Case No. 23-939 | Docket Link: 23-939Context & ConnectionThis week, we revisit the 2024 landmark ruling on Presidential immunity to provide context for our current coverage of Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook. These cases collectively explore the boundaries of Article II authority: (1) when can the President fire a person without cause when Congress permitted the person's firing only for cause; and (2) when can courts second guess the President's for cause determinations. The Immunity FrameworkIn a 6-3 ruling in favor of presidential immunity, the Supreme Court established a three-tiered hierarchy for evaluating the criminal prosecution of a former President:Core Constitutional Powers: The President possesses absolute immunity for actions falling within his "conclusive and preclusive" constitutional authority (e.g., the pardon power, veto power, or recognition of foreign nations).Official Acts: The President is entitled to presumptive immunity for all other official acts within the "outer perimeter" of his responsibilities. The government must prove that prosecution would pose no danger of intrusion on the Executive Branch's function to rebut this.Unofficial Acts: The President holds no immunity for unofficial, private conduct.Analysis: The "Pall of Prosecution" vs. The Rule of LawThe Majority Opinion (Roberts): The Court prioritized the "energetic executive," arguing that the threat of future prosecution would "chill" a President's ability to make bold, split-second decisions. By citing Fitzgerald and Youngstown, the Court emphasized that the Executive must be able to manage the Justice Department without judicial "second-guessing" of motives.The Evidentiary Bar: Crucially, the Court ruled that in a prosecution for unofficial acts, the Government cannot introduce evidence of official acts (such as private conversations with advisors) to prove the President's intent or context. This creates a significant "evidentiary shield" that complicates the prosecution of private conduct.The Dissents (Sotomayor & Jackson): Justice Sotomayor issued a stark warning, arguing the decision creates a "law-free zone" around the President. She contended that the majority's focus on "chilling" presidential action ignores the greater danger of an "insulated" President who can use the tools of the state (like the military or DOJ) to commit crimes with impunity. Justice Jackson focused on the "interbranch accountability" gap, noting that the ruling shifts the power to determine criminal liability from the law to the Judiciary's ad hoc classification of "official" vs. "unofficial."First in History: This was the first time in the 235-year history of the United States that the Supreme Court addressed whether a former President is immune from federal criminal prosecution for...