What is at stake in Hemani is not whether the government may criminalize mixing guns and drugs.
Rather, the law under which it indicted him prohibits a person from possessing firearms at all times because he sometimes uses drugs.
Read more at SCOTUSblog
A Florida man’s complex jurisdictional appeal forced the justices to wrestle with whether Congress could strip the high court of authority to reign supreme over federal law.
Read more at Courthouse News
In two unanimous rulings on Monday, the Supreme Court rebutted trial court decisions where the justices determined that judges had strayed too far from precedent.
“To put it plainly, courts ‘call balls and strikes’; they don’t get a turn at bat,” the court wrote in a per curiam ruling — using a metaphor that Chief Justice John Roberts famously made during his confirmation hearings.
Read more at Courthouse News
The Fourth Amendment generally requires police officers to obtain a warrant before they enter a home. But the Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to that rule for emergencies. On Wednesday, Oct. 15, in Case v. Montana, the justices will consider how certain police must be that there is an emergency before they can enter a home without a warrant. Is it enough, as the Montana Supreme Court held, that police have only “reasonable suspicion” that there is an emergency? Or are police officers required to meet a higher bar and have probable cause to believe that there is an emergency?
Read more at SCOTUSblog
The rule was adopted by the agency in 2020 during Donald Trump's first presidential administration. The FDA required that warnings about the risks of smoking occupy the top 50% of cigarette packs and top 20% of advertisements. The regulation is technically in effect, but the FDA has generally withheld, enforcing it amid legal challenges.
Read more at Reuters
Going forward, Loper Bright is a boon for regulated parties, who can now seek to invalidate agency action simply by showing the agency’s interpretation of its statute is not the best one — it is no longer enough for the agency to argue that its interpretation is “reasonable.”
Read more at Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance
