Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A former Army specialist was seriously injured in a suicide bombing at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan. The attack was carried out by Ahmad Nayeb, a Taliban operative hired by Fluor Corporation, a military contractor, as part of a program encouraging the hiring of Afghan nationals. The Army’s investigation concluded that Fluor was primarily responsible due to negligent supervision and failure to enforce proper security procedures, including allowing Nayeb to check out tools used in the bombing and to move about the base unsupervised. The plaintiff sued Fluor in federal court in South Carolina, seeking damages under state law for negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, and negligent retention of Nayeb.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to Fluor, holding that state-law tort claims were preempted under Fourth Circuit precedent whenever they arose out of combatant activities in a wartime setting. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, adopting a broad “battlefield preemption” doctrine. It reasoned that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) combatant-activities exception, which preserves government immunity for claims arising out of military combatant activities, reflected an intent to bar all tort suits against contractors connected with those activities, regardless of whether the contractor followed or violated military instructions.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case. The Court held that the Fourth Circuit erred in finding the state-law tort claims preempted where the federal government neither ordered nor authorized the challenged conduct. The Supreme Court clarified that neither the Constitution, federal statutes, nor its precedents support such broad preemption. Preemption applies only if the contractor was following government directives or if there is a significant conflict between federal interests and state law, which was not the case here. View "Hencely v. Fluor Corp." on Justia Law

The case concerns a dispute over the operation of Line 5, a petroleum pipeline owned and operated by Enbridge, which traverses the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan under a 1953 easement granted by the State. In June 2019, the Michigan Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court seeking to stop Enbridge from operating the pipeline, arguing that the easement was void and that continued operation violated state law due to environmental risks. Enbridge was served with the complaint in July 2019 but did not remove the case to federal court within the statutory 30-day deadline. Instead, Enbridge litigated in state court for over a year.Subsequently, in November 2020, the Michigan Governor revoked the easement and initiated a separate state lawsuit with similar claims. Enbridge timely removed the Governor’s case to federal court, where the parties agreed to pause the Attorney General’s case pending resolution. After the District Court in the Governor’s case denied remand, finding federal-question jurisdiction, the Governor dismissed her suit. Thereafter, 887 days after the Attorney General’s complaint was served, Enbridge removed the original state lawsuit to federal court. The Attorney General moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely. The U.S. District Court denied the motion, excusing Enbridge’s late removal on equitable grounds and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that although the 30-day removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) is nonjurisdictional, it is not subject to equitable tolling due to the statute’s text, structure, and context. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Sixth Circuit’s decision, holding that §1446(b)(1)’s 30-day removal deadline cannot be equitably tolled. As a result, Enbridge’s removal was untimely, and the case must be remanded to Michigan state court. View "Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel" on Justia Law

Parents and teachers in California challenged state policies that require schools to keep information about students’ gender transitioning confidential from parents unless the students consent. The parents objected to being excluded from knowledge and decisions regarding their children’s gender presentation at school, especially when those actions conflicted with their religious beliefs or their desire to participate in their children’s mental health care. Several parents described situations in which they were not informed about their children’s gender identity at school until after significant mental health crises occurred. Teachers objected to being compelled to use students’ preferred names and pronouns contrary to the wishes of parents and their own beliefs.The case was initiated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where two teachers first challenged district policies. As litigation unfolded, the case expanded to include state officials as defendants and parents as additional plaintiffs. The District Court certified parent and teacher classes, granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, and entered a permanent injunction that prohibited schools from withholding information from parents and required adherence to parental directions on names and pronouns. The District Court also ordered state-created instructional materials to include notice of the rights protected by the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a stay of the injunction pending appeal, expressing procedural concerns about class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and skepticism regarding the merits of the constitutional claims.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Ninth Circuit’s stay as to the parent plaintiffs, concluding that the parents seeking religious exemptions are likely to succeed on their Free Exercise and Due Process claims. The Court found the parents face irreparable harm and that equities favor them. The procedural objections raised by the Ninth Circuit were deemed unlikely to prevail. The application to vacate was otherwise denied. View "Mirabelli v. Bonta" on Justia Law

A company operating a private detention facility in Colorado under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was sued in a class action by a former detainee. The lawsuit challenged two of the company’s work policies for detainees: a sanitation policy that required unpaid cleaning under threat of punishment, and a voluntary work program offering minimal pay. Plaintiffs alleged that the sanitation policy violated federal anti-forced-labor laws and that the voluntary work program constituted unjust enrichment under Colorado law.After discovery, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado considered the company’s argument that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co., it could not be held liable for conduct that the government had lawfully “authorized and directed.” The District Court concluded that the government contract did not instruct the company to adopt the specific work policies at issue and that the company had developed those policies on its own. Therefore, the court held that the Yearsley doctrine did not shield the company from liability and allowed the case to proceed to trial.The company appealed immediately, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a denial of Yearsley protection is not subject to interlocutory appeal under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s decision, holding that Yearsley provides a merits defense, not an immunity from suit. Therefore, a pretrial order denying Yearsley protection cannot be immediately appealed; any review must wait until after final judgment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal" on Justia Law

The parents of a young child in Texas purchased and fed him baby food manufactured by one company and sold by another. After the child began exhibiting serious developmental and physical disorders, doctors attributed his condition to heavy-metal poisoning. Years later, a congressional subcommittee released a report identifying elevated levels of toxic heavy metals in certain baby foods, including that manufactured by the company in question. The parents then sued both the manufacturer and the retailer in Texas state court, alleging various state-law product liability, negligence, and breach-of-warranty claims.The manufacturer, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, removed the case to federal court, arguing that the retailer—a Texas citizen like the plaintiffs—had been improperly joined and should be dismissed, thereby creating complete diversity. The United States District Court agreed, dismissed the retailer, denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, and proceeded to trial against the manufacturer alone. After trial, the District Court granted judgment as a matter of law to the manufacturer. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed with the District Court’s finding of improper joinder, reversed the dismissal of the retailer, and concluded that because the retailer was a proper party, complete diversity was lacking. The Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case to state court.The Supreme Court of the United States held that the District Court’s erroneous dismissal of the nondiverse defendant did not cure the jurisdictional defect present at the time of removal. Because the jurisdictional defect was not cured and persisted through final judgment, the federal court’s judgment had to be vacated. The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist" on Justia Law

Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC initiated bankruptcy proceedings in 2014 and brought an adversary action against Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. to recover $50,000 in unpaid invoices. Vista-Pro attempted to serve Coney Island by mail but allegedly did not comply with the required service rules. Coney Island did not respond, leading the Bankruptcy Court to enter a default judgment in 2015. Over the next six years, the bankruptcy trustee sought to enforce the judgment, including notifying Coney Island’s CEO of the judgment in 2016. In 2021, a marshal seized funds from Coney Island’s bank account to satisfy the judgment, prompting Coney Island to seek relief from the judgment, alleging it was void due to improper service.The United States Bankruptcy Court denied Coney Island’s motion to vacate the judgment, finding that Coney Island failed to meet the requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) that such motions be brought within a “reasonable time.” The United States District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit both affirmed this decision, agreeing that the reasonable-time limit applied to motions alleging a void judgment.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case to resolve a split among lower courts over whether the reasonable-time requirement of Rule 60(c)(1) applies to motions under Rule 60(b)(4) claiming a judgment is void. The Court held that the plain language and structure of Rule 60 make the reasonable-time requirement applicable to all Rule 60(b) motions, including those asserting voidness. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit, concluding that motions for relief from allegedly void judgments must be made within a reasonable time. View "Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton" on Justia Law

Harold Berk, while traveling in Delaware, suffered a fractured ankle and sought treatment at Beebe Medical Center, where Dr. Wilson Choy recommended a protective boot. Berk alleged that hospital staff improperly fitted the boot, worsening his injury, and that Dr. Choy failed to order an immediate follow-up X-ray, resulting in delayed treatment and the need for surgery. Berk, a citizen of another state, filed a medical malpractice suit in federal court against both the hospital and Dr. Choy under Delaware law.Delaware law requires that a medical malpractice complaint be accompanied by an affidavit of merit from a medical professional. Berk requested an extension to file this affidavit, which was granted, but ultimately failed to secure the required affidavit and instead filed his medical records under seal. The United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed Berk’s suit for failing to comply with Delaware’s affidavit of merit statute. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal, finding the state law substantive and applicable in federal court because, in its view, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not address the affidavit requirement.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Delaware’s affidavit of merit requirement does not apply in federal court. The Court reasoned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which governs the information a plaintiff must provide at the outset of a lawsuit, sets the standard for pleadings and does not require supporting evidence such as an affidavit. Because Rule 8 is a valid procedural rule under the Rules Enabling Act and regulates the manner and means by which claims are presented, it displaces the contrary Delaware law. The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Berk v. Choy" on Justia Law

The case involves three separate lawsuits filed by individuals, organizations, and states to prevent the enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160. This order specifies conditions under which a person born in the United States is not considered a citizen. The plaintiffs argue that the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause and the Nationality Act of 1940. District Courts in each case issued universal injunctions, preventing the order's enforcement against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. The Government sought to limit these injunctions to the plaintiffs, arguing that the courts lacked the authority to issue such broad relief.The District Courts concluded that the Executive Order was likely unlawful and issued universal preliminary injunctions. The Courts of Appeals denied the Government's requests to stay these injunctions. The Government then filed emergency applications with the Supreme Court, seeking partial stays to limit the injunctions to the plaintiffs.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts by Congress. The Court granted the Government's applications for partial stays, limiting the injunctions to the extent necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. The Court emphasized that federal courts' equitable authority is confined to traditional remedies available at the time of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and universal injunctions do not have a historical precedent. The Court directed the lower courts to determine whether narrower injunctions would be appropriate. View "Trump v. CASA, Inc." on Justia Law

Pierre Riley, a Jamaican citizen, was ordered removed from the United States by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under expedited procedures for aliens convicted of aggravated felonies. Riley sought relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming he would be killed by a drug kingpin if returned to Jamaica. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Riley credible and granted deferral of removal under the CAT. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the IJ’s order, allowing the removal order to be enforced.Riley filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit within 30 days of the BIA’s decision but long after the DHS issued the final administrative review order (FARO). The Fourth Circuit dismissed Riley’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the 30-day filing deadline for judicial review of a final order of removal is jurisdictional and that the final order of removal was the FARO, not the BIA’s decision.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that BIA orders denying deferral of removal in withholding-only proceedings are not final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1). The Court also held that the 30-day filing deadline under §1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. Consequently, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Riley v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved California regulations under the Clean Air Act that require automakers to produce more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles to reduce emissions. Several fuel producers, including those of gasoline and ethanol, sued the EPA, arguing that the EPA lacked the authority to approve these regulations as they target global climate change rather than local air quality issues. The fuel producers claimed that the regulations would significantly reduce the demand for liquid fuels, causing them monetary injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and held that the fuel producers lacked Article III standing. The court found that the fuel producers failed to demonstrate that automakers would likely respond to the invalidation of the regulations by producing fewer electric vehicles and more gasoline-powered vehicles, thus failing to establish redressability.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the EPA’s approval of the California regulations. The Court found that the fuel producers demonstrated injury in fact, causation, and redressability. The Court reasoned that the regulations likely cause monetary injury to the fuel producers by reducing the demand for gasoline and other liquid fuels. The Court also found that invalidating the regulations would likely redress the injury by increasing the sales of gasoline-powered vehicles and, consequently, the demand for liquid fuels. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law