Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

During his murder trial, the defendant chose to testify in his own defense, claiming self-defense in the fatal stabbing. Partway through his testimony, the trial was interrupted by a 24-hour overnight recess. Before the break, the trial judge instructed the defendant’s attorneys not to “manage” or shape his ongoing testimony during the recess but clarified that the defendant was not barred from speaking with his lawyers about other matters, such as sentencing or trial strategy. After the recess, the defendant resumed testifying and was later convicted of murder.Upon appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the trial judge’s conferral order. The appellate court found that the order was constitutionally permissible because it only restricted discussions specifically about managing the defendant’s ongoing testimony, not all attorney-client consultations. The appellate court emphasized that the order did not prevent the defendant from consulting his attorneys on other protected matters, such as plea negotiations or trial strategy, and was therefore a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion.The Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether a qualified order limiting discussion of a defendant’s ongoing testimony during a midtestimony overnight recess violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Supreme Court held that such a qualified order is constitutional, so long as it prohibits only discussion of testimony for its own sake and does not prevent consultation on other protected topics, including trial strategy, plea discussions, or evidentiary issues. The Court distinguished this qualified order from a total ban on attorney-client discussions and affirmed that the order properly balanced the defendant’s right to counsel against the integrity of unaltered trial testimony. The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals was affirmed. View "Villarreal v. Texas" on Justia Law

President Trump, after taking office, declared national emergencies over two foreign threats: the influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China, and persistent trade deficits affecting U.S. manufacturing and supply chains. Invoking authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he imposed tariffs—25% on most Canadian and Mexican imports, 10% on most Chinese imports for drug trafficking, and at least 10% on all imports for trade deficit concerns, with higher rates for dozens of nations and frequent modifications.Two sets of plaintiffs challenged these tariffs. In the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Learning Resources plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, as the court found IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Government's motion to transfer to the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) was denied. In V.O.S. Selections, plaintiffs prevailed in the CIT, which granted summary judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed, holding that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate… importation” did not authorize such tariffs, as their scope, amount, and duration were unbounded.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the consolidated appeals. It held that IEEPA does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs, reasoning that the statute’s language—particularly “regulate… importation”—does not include the distinct power to tax or raise revenue through tariffs, a core congressional function. The Court emphasized the absence of explicit authorization and the constitutional structure reserving tariff powers to Congress. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment in the V.O.S. Selections case and vacated the District Court’s judgment in Learning Resources, remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump" on Justia Law

A man was convicted in Maryland state court for the attempted murder of his girlfriend, who was shot in her apartment. The prosecution presented evidence including a homemade device that appeared to be a silencer and DNA evidence tying the defendant to that device. Witnesses testified about the defendant’s involvement in preparing the device and his motive, which stemmed from the girlfriend’s pregnancy and her threat to seek child support. Additional evidence linked the defendant to the type of firearm used in the shooting. The jury found the defendant guilty as an accessory before the fact, and he was sentenced to life in prison.After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, the defendant sought postconviction relief in Maryland state court, arguing that the prosecution failed to disclose a forensic report about a laptop, which could have impeached a key witness’s testimony regarding the defendant’s online activity. The state postconviction court granted a new trial, but the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that the undisclosed evidence was not material because the other evidence linking the defendant to the crime was strong enough that there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome. The Maryland Court of Appeals denied review.The defendant then sought federal habeas relief. The United States District Court granted his petition, and a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the state court had not properly applied the correct standard for materiality under Brady v. Maryland. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed, holding that the state appellate court correctly applied the materiality standard and that, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), federal courts must defer to reasonable state court decisions. The Supreme Court found that a fairminded jurist could conclude the withheld evidence was not material, and therefore federal habeas relief was not warranted. View "Klein v. Martin" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted of a federal crime and, after the enactment of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), was sentenced to pay $7,567.25 in restitution to his victim, even though his criminal conduct occurred before the MVRA became law. Years later, the petitioner challenged the continued obligation to pay restitution, arguing that applying the MVRA retroactively to his conduct violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.The United States District Court initially sentenced the petitioner under the MVRA. When the petitioner challenged the restitution order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found against him, ruling that restitution under the MVRA is not criminal punishment and thus not subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Eighth Circuit’s decision rested on its interpretation that MVRA restitution was a civil remedy rather than a criminal penalty.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and reversed the Eighth Circuit’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that restitution imposed under the MVRA constitutes criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court explained that the statutory text and structure, as well as its placement in the criminal code and its role as a penalty imposed at sentencing, demonstrate that restitution under the MVRA is penal in nature. The Court further noted that only criminal defendants can be ordered to pay restitution, it is imposed in criminal proceedings, and the government, not the victim, is the adverse party. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its ruling, allowing the Eighth Circuit to consider other arguments raised by the government. View "Ellingburg v. United States" on Justia Law

After receiving a report from his ex-girlfriend that he was threatening suicide and may have shot himself, law enforcement officers in Montana responded to William Case’s home. The officers were aware of Case’s mental health and substance abuse history, as well as prior threats of suicide and confrontations with police. Upon arrival, they received further details about the phone call from Case’s ex-girlfriend, observed an empty handgun holster, a notepad resembling a suicide note, and noted Case’s lack of response to their attempts at contact. Believing Case might be injured or at risk of imminent harm, the officers entered the home without a warrant to render emergency aid. During their search, Case emerged from a closet holding an object that appeared to be a gun, prompting an officer to shoot and injure him. A handgun was found near where Case had been standing.Case was charged with assaulting a police officer and moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless entry, arguing a Fourth Amendment violation. The trial court denied the motion, finding the entry justified by emergency circumstances. A Montana jury convicted Case. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the conviction, applying its “community caretaker doctrine” and concluding that police may enter a home for a welfare check if “objective, specific and articulable facts” lead an experienced officer to suspect peril. The court rejected the argument that probable cause was required for such an entry, distinguishing emergency aid situations from criminal investigations.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case to clarify the legal standard for warrantless home entry to render emergency aid. The Court held that officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have an “objectively reasonable basis for believing” that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. It declined to require probable cause in this context and affirmed the judgment of the Montana Supreme Court, finding the officers’ entry reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. View "Case v. Montana" on Justia Law

Illinois law provides that election officials must count mail-in ballots postmarked or certified no later than election day, as long as those ballots are received within two weeks after election day. Congressman Michael Bost and two other political candidates filed suit against the Illinois State Board of Elections and its executive director, asserting that counting ballots received after election day violates federal statutes that set a single election day for federal offices. The plaintiffs alleged that the challenged law would require them to expend additional campaign resources, potentially harm their reputations, and deprive them of a fair electoral process. Congressman Bost, in particular, claimed he would need to extend campaign activities and monitoring efforts for two additional weeks, incurring costs and risking a reduction in his margin of victory.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the injuries alleged—such as increased campaign costs and potential reputational harm—were speculative or voluntarily incurred. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that Congressman Bost had won his prior election with a significant margin and found the plaintiffs’ injuries to be neither concrete nor particularized enough to support standing.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Congressman Bost, as a candidate for office, does have standing to challenge the rules governing vote counting in his election. The Court reasoned that candidates possess a concrete and particularized interest in the integrity and legality of the electoral process, which is distinct from the generalized interest of voters. The judgment of the Seventh Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Jeremiah Sweeney was involved in a late-night argument with neighbors over stolen marijuana, during which he fired a gun, missing his intended targets but fatally striking a bystander some distance away. At trial, a key issue was whether Sweeney could have been the shooter given his location and the trajectory of the bullet. After the prosecution rested, a juror independently visited the crime scene and reported his findings to the rest of the jury, leading to his dismissal and the continuation of deliberations with the remaining eleven jurors. Sweeney was convicted of second-degree murder and other charges.His convictions were upheld by a Maryland appellate court on direct appeal. Sweeney then pursued postconviction relief in Maryland state court, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking to question the rest of the jury about possible prejudice following the dismissed juror’s unauthorized crime-scene visit. The state court denied relief. Sweeney repeated this claim in a federal habeas petition before the United States District Court, which also denied relief, finding that the state court's application of Strickland v. Washington was not objectively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, not on the ineffective assistance claim Sweeney asserted, but on the grounds that a series of failures deprived him of his constitutional rights, and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Circuit erred by granting relief on a claim that Sweeney had never raised, thus violating the principle of party presentation. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case, instructing the lower court to address only the ineffective-assistance claim Sweeney actually raised. View "Clark v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

A child reported sexual abuse by her father following a weekend visit, which led to criminal charges against him. At trial, the prosecution requested that a screen be placed between the child witness and the defendant during her testimony, citing a Mississippi statute that mandated such a screen in child-abuse cases. The defendant objected, contending that the statute’s mandatory requirement could not override his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser face to face unless the court made a case-specific finding that such a procedure was necessary to protect the witness.The trial court granted the State’s motion, reasoning that the statutory mandate left no discretion, and the defendant was subsequently convicted by a jury. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court acknowledged that the trial court did not make a case-specific finding of necessity but upheld the procedure, distinguishing Supreme Court precedents and holding that the statutory requirement was sufficient authority for the use of the screen.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court. The Court held that under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant’s right to confront witnesses may not be denied based solely on a statute or generalized findings of necessity. Instead, a trial court must hear evidence and make a case-specific finding of necessity before permitting screening of a child witness. The Court remanded the case, allowing the Mississippi Supreme Court to consider whether the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, consistent with the harmless-error standard. View "Pitts v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Andrew Fields, an inmate at the U.S. Penitentiary in Lee County, Virginia, was placed in solitary confinement by prison officials, who monitored his condition during his isolation. Fields claimed that during periodic checks, certain officials physically abused him. He filed suit in federal court against the Bureau of Prisons, the warden, and several prison officials, seeking damages for alleged excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Fields’s complaint, determining that there is no implied cause of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for excessive force claims by federal prison officers against inmates. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court had never recognized a damages remedy for such claims, so Fields's case arose in a new context, and a Bivens remedy was unavailable. Fields appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed in relevant part. The Fourth Circuit allowed Fields’s Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim for damages to proceed, finding that no special factors counseled against extending Bivens to this context. A dissenting judge argued that precedent barred creating a new Bivens action.The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and reversed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment. The Court held that recognizing a Bivens cause of action for Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims by federal prison officials is inappropriate. The Court found that this case presents a new Bivens context and that special factors, including congressional action in prisoner litigation, alternative remedial structures, and concerns about the operation of prisons, counsel against extending Bivens. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Goldey v. Fields" 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