The High Court Report

Based on the project templates and your episode script, here are show notes for your January 2026 mega episode:January 2026 Supreme Court Mega Preview | The High Court ReportOverview: Action-packed January brings constitutional showdowns across five major cases spanning wartime contractor protection, transgender athletics, sovereign immunity, Second Amendment property rights, and presidential removal power over Federal Reserve governors.Roadmap Episode: Complete preview covering Chevron's $744 million WWII liability case, transgender sports restrictions post-Skrmetti, New Jersey Transit sovereignty claims, Hawaii's gun permission requirements after Bruen, and Trump's authority to fire Fed officials for pre-appointment conduct.Case Summaries:Chevron v. Plaquemines (Jan 12): WWII oil companies face massive state court verdict for 1940s production methods.Little v. Hecox (Jan 13): Transgender female students challenge Idaho and West Virginia sports participation bans.CSX Galette v. NJ Transit (Jan 14): Transit authority claims sovereign immunity despite state disclaimer of responsibility.Wolford v. Lopez (Jan 20): Licensed gun carriers sue Hawaii over business entry permission requirements.Trump v. Cook (Jan 21): Presidential firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook over mortgage application allegations.Key Themes:Federalism tensions across multiple casesPost-Bruen Second Amendment applicationsSovereign immunity doctrine evolutionPresidential removal authority limitsConstitutional gender classifications after SkrmettiStatistics:Supreme Court currently reviewing 48 unique pending cases63 cases heard last term, suggesting 10-15 more additions likelyFourth sovereign immunity case this termBenjamin Aguinaga and Paul Clement each arguing third cases this yearSchedule Notes:January arguments followed by February hiatus until month-endOnly three sitting days in entire FebruaryEight March days and seven April sitting days plannedMay-June dates not yet setFollow The High Court Report:Apple, Spotify, YouTube podcastsLinkedIn for daily updatesEmail: [email protected] case previews available on podcast pageLink8/19/25 Episode: Road Work Ahead:

M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of The IAM Pension Fund | Argument Date: 1/20/26 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Can pension plans charge higher prices using future prices, or must they stick with the original prices?Overview: Four companies' pension withdrawal liability tripled from timing of actuarial assumption changes, creating circuit split over whether "as of" December 31st calculations require December 31st assumptions or permit retrospective professional judgment.Posture: Arbitrators favored companies; D.C. District Court and Circuit reversed, permitting post-measurement assumption adoption with restrictions.Main Arguments:Petitioners: (1) "As of" language creates statutory deadline requiring pre-measurement assumption adoption; (2) Legislative framework expected annual assumption reviews before measurement dates; (3) Anti-manipulation principles from Section 1394 should apply to actuarial assumptionsRespondents: (1) "As of" establishes reference date, not completion deadline for retrospective valuations; (2) "Best estimate" requirement mandates current professional judgment over stale assumptions; (3) Standard actuarial practice permits and encourages post-measurement selectionImplications: Petitioner victory creates uniform nationwide timing deadlines for actuarial assumptions but potentially forces use of outdated professional judgments. Respondent victory maintains professional flexibility and accuracy in pension calculations but creates potential manipulation risks and planning uncertainty. Decision affects multiemployer pension withdrawals nationwide, involving billions in liability calculations. Ruling influences broader questions about statutory interpretation incorporating professional standards and temporal requirements in technical regulatory contexts.The Fine Print:29 U.S.C. § 1391: "The amount of an employer's withdrawal liability...shall be computed...as of the end of the plan year preceding the plan year in which the withdrawal occurs"29 U.S.C. § 1393(a)(1): "actuarial assumptions and methods which...offer the actuary's best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan"Primary Cases:National Retirement Fund v. Metz Culinary Management (2020): Second Circuit held actuarial assumptions for withdrawal liability must exist by measurement date; automatic rollover applies absent timely changesConcrete Pipe & Products v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust (1993): Withdrawal liability creates "fixed and certain debt"; actuarial determinations receive presumption of correctness due to professional constraints and statutory requirements

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...