In this case, the hard part isn’t just what the Constitution requires. It’s how much room federal judges have to second-guess what state courts already decided. That’s the nuance here: even if you think a trial should have gone differently, federal law sets a high bar before a federal court can step in and order a new trial.

The disagreement between the majority and Justice Jackson highlights an important methodological tension. How broadly should courts interpret federal rules when checking for conflicts? For lawyers and litigants, this case confirms that the notice pleading system established by the 1938 federal rules sets a ceiling on what federal courts can require at the complaint stage. States cannot condition access to federal court on evidentiary showings that contradict this fundamental design, regardless of how they label such requirements or what substantive purposes they serve. Medical malpractice reform through affidavit requirements remains available in state courts, but federal courts remain governed by their own procedural system.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court held that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) constitutes criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's decision, concluding that the MVRA's text and structure—including its labeling of restitution as a "penalty," its placement in the criminal code, its imposition at sentencing alongside other criminal punishments, and its enforcement by the Government rather than victims—demonstrate that Congress intended restitution to be criminal punishment.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

This decision brings clarity to a question that had divided federal courts: you can’t wait indefinitely to challenge even a completely invalid judgment. The “reasonable time” requirement applies across the board, though what counts as reasonable will depend on the circumstances—particularly whether you knew about the judgment and had a fair opportunity to challenge it earlier.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court held that as a candidate for office, Congressman Michael Bost has standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election. The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision that had dismissed the case for lack of standing. The Court concluded that candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules governing vote counting in their elections, regardless of whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase campaign costs. This interest extends to the integrity of the election and the democratic process by which candidates earn or lose the support of the people they seek to represent.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's emergency aid exception permits police officers to enter a home without a warrant when they have an "objectively reasonable basis for believing" that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. The Court rejected both a lower "reasonable suspicion" standard and a "probable cause" standard, reaffirming the standard established in Brigham City v. Stuart. The Court found that officers had an objectively reasonable basis to enter William Case's home based on reports that he was threatening suicide and may have already shot himself, and therefore affirmed the Montana Supreme Court's judgment upholding the warrantless entry.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court held that Congress did not clearly authorize convictions for a single act that violates both provisions. The Court applied the Blockburger presumption, which holds that Congress ordinarily does not intend to punish the same offense under two different statutes. Finding no clear congressional intent to overcome this presumption in the statutory text, structure, or legislative history, the Court concluded that one act violating both provisions may result in only one conviction. The Second Circuit's judgment authorizing dual convictions was reversed in part.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

This case revolves around a highly technical feature of federal law governing how prisoners challenge their convictions. Congress created parallel systems: one for people convicted in state court and another for people convicted in federal court. Then Congress added gatekeeping rules to prevent prisoners from filing challenge after challenge indefinitely. But Congress wrote these gatekeeping rules using inconsistent language, creating confusion about which rules apply to which prisoners.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court granted the Government's applications for partial stays of three universal injunctions that had blocked enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14160 on birthright citizenship. The Court held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789, and limited the injunctions to provide relief only to the named plaintiffs. The Court did not address the constitutionality of the Executive Order itself.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court held that members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers whose appointment by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is consistent with the Appointments Clause. The Court found that Task Force members are subject to the Secretary's supervision and direction through the Secretary's authority to remove them at will and to review and block their recommendations before they take effect. The Court also determined that Congress properly vested appointment authority in the Secretary through two statutes: the 1999 law giving the AHRQ Director power to "convene" the Task Force (which includes appointment power) and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966 (ratified by Congress in 1984), which transfers the Director's functions to the Secretary.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras