The High Court Report

Wolford v. Lopez | Case No. 24-1046 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit concealed carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without property owner express permission.Overview: Post-Bruen constitutional challenge to Hawaii's affirmative-consent requirement for carrying firearms on private property open to public creates circuit split over intersection of Second Amendment rights and traditional property law principles.Posture: District court enjoined law; Ninth Circuit reversed, creating conflict with Second and Third Circuits.Main Arguments:• Petitioner: (1) Carrying firearms on private property open to public falls within Second Amendment's plain text protection; (2) Hawaii's presumptive prohibition effectively abolishes public carry rights through property law circumvention; (3) Colonial and Reconstruction-era scattered laws fail to establish sufficient historical tradition under Bruen framework• Respondent: (1) Second Amendment never protected armed entry onto private property without owner consent under English common law inheritance; (2) Hawaii's law vindicates fundamental property owners' right to exclude rather than restricting Second Amendment rights; (3) Multiple colonial and Reconstruction-era historical analogues constitute "dead ringers" supporting Hawaii's approach requiring express consentImplications: Petitioner victory establishes robust Second Amendment protection in privately-owned publicly-accessible spaces, potentially invalidating similar post-Bruen restrictions across multiple states and expanding public carry rights significantly. Respondent victory permits states to circumvent direct gun control restrictions through property law mechanisms, enabling broader firearms regulations while preserving traditional property rights and potentially creating complex patchwork of varying consent requirements across jurisdictions affecting everyday carry practices.The Fine Print:• H.R.S. § 134-9.5(b): "No person shall carry or possess a firearm on any private property unless that person has been given express authorization by the property owner or the owner's authorized agent through unambiguous written or verbal authorization or clear and conspicuous signage"• 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:• NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022): Second Amendment protects individual right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense; government restrictions must demonstrate consistency with historical tradition of firearm regulation rather than interest-balancing approach• Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021): Property owners possess fundamental right to exclude others from their premises, constituting "one of the most treasured rights of property ownership" requiring government compensation for regulatory takings

CSX Galette v. NJ Transit Corp. | Argument Date: 1/14/26 | Docket Link: Here Consolidated with CSX NJ Transit Corp. v. Colt | Argument Date: 1/14/26 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation functions as an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposesOverview: NJ Transit claims sovereign immunity after bus injured passenger in Philadelphia, raising fundamental federalism questions about state power to extend constitutional immunity to state-created corporations while disclaiming their debts and liabilities.Posture: Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed lower courts, holding NJ Transit qualifies as state arm based on statutory mission and structure.Main Arguments:• NJ Transit (Petitioner): (1) New Jersey's legislative designation of public transportation as "essential governmental function" deserves federal deference and establishes instrumentality status; (2) Governor's appointment, for-cause removal, and veto powers demonstrate sufficient state control; (3) Substantial state subsidies (15-40% of operating budget) create practical financial interdependence implicating state treasury despite formal liability disclaimer• Galette (Respondent): (1) Founding-era bright-line rule denied sovereign immunity to all corporations liable for own judgments regardless of state ownership, control, or purpose; (2) Treasury factor proves dispositive because New Jersey statute explicitly disclaims legal liability for NJ Transit debts, eliminating state treasury exposure; (3) Corporate structure with sue-and-be-sued powers, operational independence, and commercial transportation function demonstrates legal separateness from stateImplications: NJ Transit victory allows states to extend sovereign immunity to state-created corporations operating across state lines while disclaiming their liabilities, potentially shielding transit authorities, universities, and development agencies nationwide from sister-state court jurisdiction. Galette victory reinforces Founding-era corporate separateness doctrine and makes treasury factor controlling, requiring actual state legal liability for immunity and limiting state power to manufacture constitutional immunity through entity characterization while maintaining corporate independence and debt disclaimers.The Fine Print:• N.J. Stat. § 27:25-17: "All expenses incurred by the corporation in carrying out the provisions of this act shall be payable from funds available to the corporation...No debt or liability of the corporation shall be deemed or construed to create or constitute a debt, liability, or a loan or pledge of the credit of the State"• Eleventh Amendment: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State"Primary Cases:• Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. (1994): Treasury factor constitutes "most salient factor" that "homes in on the impetus for the Eleventh Amendment: the prevention of federal-court judgments that must be paid out of a State's treasury"; when evidence on structure and control factors appears mixed, treasury factor becomes dispositive• Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824): When government becomes partner in trading company, it "devests itself, so far as concerns the transactions of that company, of its...

Little v. Hecox | Oral Argument Date: 1/13/26 | Docket Link: HereConsolidated with West Virginia v. B. P. J. | Oral Argument Date: 1/13/26 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether laws protecting women's sports by limiting participation to biological females violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth AmendmentOverview: Consolidated cases challenging Idaho's categorical ban and West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act generate Supreme Court's first major ruling on transgender athletics after Skrmetti reshaped constitutional sex discrimination analysis.Posture: Multiple circuit splits; Little preliminarily enjoined (Ninth Circuit), West Virginia reversed (Fourth Circuit); proceedings stayed pending review.Main Arguments:• Petitioners (Idaho/West Virginia): (1) Constitutional "sex" means objective biological reality, not subjective gender identity; (2) Rational basis review applies to definitional challenges about meaning of "female"; (3) Skrmetti forecloses proxy discrimination claims targeting biology-based classificationsUnited States (as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners): (1) Equal Protection permits sex-separated athletics based on constitutional history; (2) Biology-based classifications address competitive fairness, not discriminatory animus; (3) Skrmetti forecloses proxy discrimination claims• Respondents (Hecox/B.P.J.): (1) Categorical exclusions constitute traditional sex discrimination triggering heightened scrutiny; (2) Transgender status qualifies as quasi-suspect classification warranting judicial protection; (3) Individual assessment required under VMI rather than blanket exclusionsImplications:Petitioners' victory establishes broad state authority over sex-separated activities using biological definitions, potentially affecting employment discrimination, housing rights, and educational access beyond sports.Respondent victory extends heightened constitutional protection to transgender individuals, requiring individualized consideration rather than categorical exclusions and potentially invalidating similar laws across twenty-six states.Ruling will clarify whether Skrmetti's restrictive constitutional framework applies beyond medical treatment contexts and resolve circuit split on Title IX interpretation.The Fine Print:• Fourteenth Amendment § 1: "No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"• Idaho Code § 33-6203(3): "Athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex"• W. Va. Code § 18-2-25d(c)(2): Female teams "shall not be open to students of the male sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport"Primary Cases:• United States v. Skrmetti (2025): Constitutional sex classifications analyze biological differences rather than gender identity; laws addressing medical procedures and age restrictions don't trigger heightened scrutiny based on transgender status• United States v. Virginia (VMI) (1996): Sex-based exclusions require exceedingly persuasive justification under intermediate scrutiny; categorical rules must account for...

This episode:Analyzes the Supreme Court's blockbuster end to the 2024-2025 term, covering the final nine opinions and examining patterns across all 61 cases decided this term.Explores the dramatic Friday release where cases "trickled out slowly" due to lengthy dissents read from the bench, dive into comprehensive term statistics, and conduct an in-depth analysis of Justice Barrett's methodological approach in Trump v. CASA—particularly her heavy reliance on historical sources versus textual analysis.Concludes with analysis of seven landmark cases the Court agreed to hear for next term, including a billion-dollar copyright battle over internet piracy (Cox v. Sony Music), a campaign finance showdown (National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC), and disputes over federal removal deadlines, private rights of action, and criminal fugitive tolling that could reshape fundamental areas of American law. June 30 Order List: Here.Episode HighlightsFinal Week Patterns: June 27th saw uniform 6-3 splits with conservative dominance, while June 26th showed more fractures with 5-4 and 6-3 divisionsTerm Overview: 61 total cases decided with a 70% reversal rate, demonstrating the Court's role as an error-correction mechanismVoting Consensus: 43% of cases decided unanimously (26 cases), showing remarkable agreement despite ideological divisionsBarrett's Methodology: Deep dive into her historical originalism approach in Trump v. CASA versus her typical textualist methods in other casesNew Cert Grants: Overview of the 7 new cases SCOTUS agreed to hear.Key Justice Statistics (2024-2025 Term)The Justices wrote 5 Per Curiam opinions.Justice Roberts: Authored or joined 59 opinions, authored or joined 1 concurrences and authored or joined 2 dissents.Justice Thomas: Authored or joined 47 opinions, authored or joined 21 concurrences and authored or joined 14 dissents.Justice Alito: Authored or joined 47 opinions, authored or joined 21 concurrences and authored or joined 14 dissents.Justice Sotomayor: Authored or joined 45 opinions, authored or joined 11 concurrences and authored or joined 13 dissents.Justice Kagan: Authored or joined 51 opinions, authored or joined 2 concurrences and authored or joined 9 dissents.Justice Gorsuch: Authored or joined 42 opinions, authored or joined 6 concurrences and authored or joined 12 dissents.Justice Kavanaugh: Authored or joined 57 opinions, authored or joined 9 concurrences and authored or joined 3 dissents.Justice Barrett: Authored or joined 54 opinions, authored or joined 10 concurrences and authored or joined 5 dissents.Justice Jackson: Authored or joined 41 opinions, authored or joined 12 concurrences and authored or joined 17 dissents.Referenced CasesTrump v. CASA (universal injunctions)Grupo Mexicano (historical equity test)Louisiana v. Callais (relisted case)Esteras v. United States (criminal...

Trump v. Cook | Argument Date: 1/21/26 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether Federal Reserve Board governors possess Fifth Amendment property rights in their offices and whether "for cause" removal authority permits presidential removal based on pre-office conduct.Overview: President Trump's 30-minute ultimatum removal of Fed Governor Cook over mortgage misrepresentations creates unprecedented constitutional crisis testing presidential power against central bank independence and due process rights.Posture: D.C. Circuit denied emergency stay by 2-1 vote; Governor Cook continues serving pending appeal.Main Arguments:• Trump (Petitioner): (1) Federal offices constitute no Fifth Amendment property interest under longstanding precedent; (2) "For cause" permits broad removal discretion for misconduct affecting fitness including pre-office conduct; (3) Presidential removal determinations remain unreviewable by courts absent explicit congressional authorization• Cook (Respondent): (1) Tenure-protected officers possess constitutionally protected property interest requiring pre-removal hearing under Loudermill; (2) "For cause" historically limited to in-office conduct under 1913/1935 statutory backdrop; (3) Judicial review prevents presidential circumvention of congressional restrictions protecting agency independenceImplications: Trump victory eliminates due process protections for principal officers while expanding presidential control over independent agencies through discretionary "for cause" interpretations. Cook victory establishes constitutional hearing requirements for tenure-protected removal while constraining presidential authority to politicize Federal Reserve monetary policy decisions affecting national economic stability.The Fine Print:• 12 U.S.C. § 242: "Any member of the Board may be removed for cause by the President"• Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"Primary Cases:• Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985): Tenure-protected public employees possess property interest in continued employment requiring pre-termination notice and hearing opportunity• Taylor v. Beckham (1900): Political offices constitute no property rights protected by Due Process Clause; removal from office triggers no constitutional process requirements