The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Eleventh Circuit's decision, holding that: (1) the law enforcement proviso in the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) overrides only the intentional-tort exception in §2680(h), not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout §2680; and (2) the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits. The Court directed the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider whether the discretionary-function exception bars the plaintiffs' negligent or intentional tort claims without reference to its mistaken views.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras⁠⁠

When a door closes only to be cracked open again, does your first knock still count? In Parrish v. United States, the Court said it does. A man filed his notice of appeal after the official deadline but before a judge agreed to reopen the time limit. The Court found that federal rules support this principle and that requiring a duplicate filing would create unnecessary procedural hurdles, particularly for those without legal representation. This ruling ensures that technical timing issues won't prevent people from having their appeals heard, especially when delays in receiving court decisions are beyond their control.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras⁠

The Court held that the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act's settlement procedures and limitations period. The Court found that the CRSC statute creates a separate settlement mechanism that authorizes the Secretary concerned to determine both the validity of CRSC claims and the amount due on them, thereby constituting "another law" that displaces the Barring Act's default procedures, including its 6-year limitations period.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court unanimously held that schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of "bad faith or gross misjudgment" but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. The Court rejected the Eighth Circuit's application of a more demanding standard for education-related disability discrimination claims.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Wisconsin's application of its unemployment compensation tax exemption statute violated the First Amendment. The Court held that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute, which denied an exemption to Catholic Charities because they neither engaged in proselytization nor limited their charitable services to Catholics, constituted denominational discrimination by differentiating between religions based on theological lines. The Court applied strict scrutiny and found that Wisconsin failed to demonstrate that its application of the law was narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

Mexico's lawsuit against seven American gun manufacturers is barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The Court held that Mexico's complaint did not plausibly allege that the manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, which was necessary to trigger PLCAA's predicate exception. Without satisfying this exception, PLCAA's general prohibition against lawsuits seeking to hold gun manufacturers liable for criminal misuse of their products by third parties applies.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court looked at a rule from the Sixth Circuit that said people in the majority group had to show more proof than others to win a discrimination case under Title VII. Title VII's text makes no distinctions among protected-class members; it forbids discrimination "against any individual." Previous Supreme Court decisions affirm that Title VII prohibits discriminatory preference for "any group, minority or majority," and that courts should avoid rigid formulations when evaluating discrimination claims.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court was ready to weigh in on whether a lawsuit for damages could include people who were never hurt alongside those who actually suffered harm, but then it decided not to decide. This case reflects the ongoing challenge of balancing the need to address widespread discrimination through class actions while preventing overly broad certifications that might lead to unfair settlements or violate defendants' due process rights.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

In Blom Bank v. Honickman, a bank asked to reopen a closed case so it could tweak its complaint. But there’s a rule that says you can only reopen a case for really rare, compelling reasons; so rare that they call them “extraordinary circumstances.” This decision provides important guidance on the balance between finality in litigation and opportunities to correct pleadings.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a country generally can’t claim immunity when the law itself lists clear exceptions—and when the papers are served properly. The question before the justices was whether you also had to prove some extra connection, or “minimum contacts,” as a separate step. By letting the statutory exceptions themselves define when jurisdiction exists, the Court preserved the straightforward framework Congress intended.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras