As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court has been involved in several significant and contentious issues. One of the most recent and notable developments involves the Trump administration's efforts to implement restrictions on birthright citizenship. The administration has filed emergency applications with the Supreme Court, seeking to allow parts of an executive order to take effect despite being blocked by lower courts. This order aims to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally, a move that has been challenged by numerous states and groups on constitutional grounds, particularly the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.

In another significant development, the Supreme Court has been dealing with various emergency applications related to upcoming elections. For instance, applications involving Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s candidacy for president have been denied. The court refused to grant injunctions that would have required states like Wisconsin and Michigan to remove Kennedy's name from the ballot.

On the judicial process front, the Supreme Court has made decisions on several emergency applications, including those related to executions and procedural matters. For example, the court denied a stay of execution for Carey Dale Grayson, who was challenging Alabama's use of nitrogen hypoxia for his execution. Similarly, an emergency application to stay the execution of Freddie Eugene Owens was also denied.

Additionally, the court has addressed issues related to public health and free speech. An application to protect the public viewpoint speech of Washington licensed physicians from state investigation and sanctioning was denied. This case involved physicians whose statements were characterized as "misinformation."

In terms of broader judicial policy, the Supreme Court continues to grapple with the issue of nationwide injunctions, a topic that has drawn criticism from some justices. The Trump administration's recent filings highlight concerns about the broad reach of orders issued by individual federal judges.

Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court has been at the center of several significant developments recently. One of the major headlines involves a case that could have far-reaching implications for healthcare access, particularly for low-income patients. The Court heard arguments on whether states can cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. This case, originating from South Carolina, revolves around the state's attempt to block Medicaid funding to the organization, a move that could affect patients relying on Planned Parenthood for services such as contraception, cancer screenings, and pregnancy testing.

During the hearings, the justices appeared divided, with some conservatives leaning towards the state's argument that such lawsuits by Medicaid patients are not allowed, which could save public money in legal fees. Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed a need for clarity on this issue, given the confusion in lower courts. However, justices like Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan raised concerns about the impact on low-income patients, questioning whether an administrative appeal process would be effective for them.

This case is part of a broader push by abortion opponents to defund Planned Parenthood, and its outcome could influence other states that have also moved to cut the organization out of their Medicaid programs.

In addition to this, the Supreme Court issued two significant decisions. In the case of FDA v. Wages, the Court vacated a Fifth Circuit decision that had ruled the FDA acted arbitrarily in denying electronic cigarette manufacturers' applications to market their products. The Supreme Court held that the FDA's decisions were consistent with its pre-decisional guidance, although it did acknowledge the FDA's failure to review the applicants' marketing plans as a potential issue.

Another decision came in the case of Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, where the Court ruled 5-4 that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) does not categorically bar recovery for business or property losses that derive from personal injuries. This ruling clarifies that plaintiffs can seek civil RICO damages for business or property losses, even if those losses resulted from personal injuries.

These decisions and the ongoing case regarding Planned Parenthood funding highlight the Supreme Court's active role in shaping key legal and policy issues in the United States.

Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and analysis on the US Supreme Court.

As of April 2, the US Supreme Court is set to release opinions in one or more argued cases from the current term. This announcement has generated significant interest, as it often does, given the potential impact of these decisions on various aspects of American law and society.

One of the major cases that has been in the spotlight involves a dispute over taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. The case, originating from South Carolina, centers on the state's decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program due to the organization's provision of abortion services. Despite federal law prohibiting government funding for abortions, South Carolina argues that providing Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood indirectly supports their abortion services. The plaintiffs, including Medicaid beneficiaries, contend that this exclusion violates the Medicaid Act's provision guaranteeing patients the free choice of healthcare providers. This case has significant implications for healthcare access, particularly for low-income and minority women who rely on Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services such as contraception and cancer screenings.

In another notable development, the Supreme Court is also addressing a matter related to the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law that has been invoked during wartime. Recently, lawyers for alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua urged the court to maintain a federal judge's order that prevents the federal government from removing individuals from the United States under this law without a hearing. The plaintiffs argue that many individuals were erroneously identified as gang members and face severe risks if deported to foreign prisons.

These cases highlight the Supreme Court's ongoing role in shaping critical legal and social issues in the United States, from healthcare access to immigration and national security.

Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court.

In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant ruling was issued on March 26, 2025, where the Court upheld federal regulations on so-called "ghost gun" kits. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court supported the Biden Administration's regulation that restricts access to these self-assemble firearm kits, which produce untraceable weapons known as "ghost guns."

Additionally, the Court has been grappling with a high-stakes dispute over Louisiana's congressional districts. On March 25, 2025, the justices heard arguments on whether Louisiana legislators should be sent back to the drawing board to redraw the state’s congressional districts following the 2020 census. This case involves critical issues related to the role of race in redistricting.

In another notable development, former President Donald Trump has requested the Supreme Court to intervene in two separate matters. Trump has asked the Court to lift a judge's block on a case related to "alien" issues and also to block the reinstatement of 16,000 terminated federal probationary employees, following a judge's order to reinstate them.

On the administrative front, Chief Justice John Roberts recently rebuked Trump over comments calling for the impeachment of federal judges whose rulings conflicted with the Trump administration's policies, particularly on deportation plans.

The Supreme Court is also set to decide on several other significant cases, including disputes over the Clean Air Act and the storage of highly toxic nuclear waste at privately run U.S. facilities.

Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS news Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court.

Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. I'm Jason, your reporter for all the latest developments from the US Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, March 26, the Supreme Court released several significant opinions. One of the key cases was _Bondi v. VanDerStok_, where the Court upheld the ATF's 2022 Rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ruling determined that the ATF's interpretation, which covers products that can be readily converted into operational firearms or functional frames or receivers, known as "ghost guns," is not facially inconsistent with the Act. The decision was supported by a majority of the justices, with Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson each filing concurring opinions, while Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.

Another notable case decided on the same day was _United States v. Miller_, although details on this specific case are not as widely available as those for _Bondi v. VanDerStok_.

Earlier in the week, on March 21, the Court issued an important decision in _Delligatti v. United States_. Here, the Court ruled that the knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the "use" of "physical force" against another person within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(A). This decision was unanimous among the participating justices, with Justice Gorsuch and Justice Jackson joining in a dissenting opinion.

Also on March 21, the Court decided _Thompson v. United States_, where it was held that Title 18 U.S.C. §1014, which prohibits "knowingly mak[ing] any false statement," does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false. This decision was unanimous, with Justices Alito and Jackson filing concurring opinions.

In addition to these decisions, the Supreme Court has several upcoming cases and hearings. For instance, the Court is set to hear oral arguments in disputes over which federal courts should handle lawsuits related to the Clean Air Act, specifically in the cases _Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC_ and _Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency_.

Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. For the latest updates and in-depth analysis, be sure to subscribe to our channel.

As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court is in the midst of its March argument session, which began on March 24 and will continue until April 2. This session is packed with significant cases that address a range of critical issues.

On March 24, the Court heard arguments in two notable cases: *Louisiana v. Callais*, which involves a challenge to a lower court's decision to strike down a congressional voting map that created a second majority-Black district in Louisiana, and *Riley v. Bondi*, a dispute over the 30-day deadline to seek review of a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying withholding of deportation.

The following day, March 25, the justices delved into environmental law with *EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining* and *Oklahoma v. EPA*. These cases focus on whether challenges to the EPA's decisions under the Clean Air Act must be litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Today, March 26, the Court is set to hear *FCC v. Consumers’ Research*, a case that challenges a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. This case involves the validity of an FCC program aimed at improving internet and phone services in underserved areas, with the appeals court ruling that the program violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress’s power.

In addition to these arguments, the Court is also expected to issue one or more opinions from the current term today. This could bring significant developments in various legal areas, although the specific cases to be decided have not been announced.

The upcoming days will see the Court tackling more contentious issues, including a case on whether Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by denying a tax exemption to a religious organization, and another on the federal law governing second petitions for federal post-conviction relief.

Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court.

As of the latest updates, the U.S. Supreme Court has been involved in several significant developments, particularly surrounding the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and other pending cases.

Recently, the court's actions have paved the way for the reinstatement of the CTA's reporting obligations. On February 18, 2025, a court lifted the last remaining nationwide injunction that had prevented the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) from enforcing the CTA. This decision followed a January 23, 2025, order from the Supreme Court that allowed FinCEN to resume enforcement of the CTA's Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirements while an underlying case, *McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop*, continues to be litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As a result, FinCEN has extended the CTA reporting deadlines for most companies until March 21, 2025. This new deadline applies to companies formed before, during, and in 2025, with some exceptions for entities that qualify for extensions due to disaster relief or other reasons. FinCEN has also indicated plans to modify certain CTA requirements to alleviate filing burdens on lower-risk entities.

In addition to the CTA developments, the Supreme Court is set to issue one or more opinions from the current term on March 21, 2025. This is part of the court's regular schedule of releasing decisions, and it will be closely watched by legal observers and the public.

On the appellate front, the Fifth Circuit is handling the appeals in both *McHenry* and *Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury*, with an expedited briefing schedule and oral arguments scheduled for March 25, 2025. These cases are crucial as they will determine the constitutionality and implementation details of the CTA.

Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on U.S. Supreme Court news.

As we track the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, several significant cases and decisions have come to the forefront in the ongoing 2024-2025 term. The Court began hearing cases on October 7, 2024, and has already agreed to hear approximately 49 cases, with more expected to be added.

One of the key cases involves a Texas law requiring websites with content harmful to minors to verify the age of their users. In *Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton*, the Court will determine whether this law should be subject to strict scrutiny or rational basis review under the First Amendment.

Another critical area is firearms regulation. The Court is set to decide on the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to regulate ghost guns in *Garland v. VanDerStok*. This case delves into whether certain firearm parts kits and frames or receivers fall under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The Court is also addressing issues related to youth transgender care. In *United States v. Skrmetti*, it will consider the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that prohibits medical treatments for minors aimed at aligning their gender identity with their sex.

Environmental issues are also on the agenda, particularly in *City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency*, where the Court will examine the EPA's authority to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

In addition, the Court has recently made a decision regarding the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. In *TikTok Inc. v. Garland* and *Firebaugh v. Garland*, the Court upheld a federal law that makes it unlawful for companies in the US to provide services to, distribute, maintain, or update TikTok unless its US operations are severed from Chinese control. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny, finding the law content-neutral and justified by the government's interest in preventing China from collecting sensitive data from US users.

These cases highlight the Court's ongoing engagement with a wide range of critical issues, from First Amendment rights and firearms regulation to environmental policy and national security concerns.

Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court.

In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant issue has emerged regarding the use of nationwide injunctions. President Donald Trump has filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, seeking to limit or eliminate the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions against his policies. Specifically, Trump is challenging three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state, which have blocked his executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants or those on short-term visas. Trump's acting solicitor general argues that these injunctions, which have been used extensively to block various aspects of his agenda, give too much power to individual district judges and hinder the Executive Branch's ability to implement policies.

This move is part of a broader critique of nationwide injunctions, which have been a contentious issue. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have criticized these injunctions, and some Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have questioned their constitutionality. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications, not only for Trump's policies but also for the general practice of judicial oversight of executive actions.

In other news, the Supreme Court is set to tackle several high-profile cases in its current term. One notable case involves a death penalty appeal from Oklahoma, where the court will decide whether a man, Richard Glossip, should be executed despite the state acknowledging his prosecution was "deeply flawed." This case highlights ongoing debates about the justice system and capital punishment.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has recently declined to hear an appeal from Elon Musk’s X platform regarding a search warrant in the election-interference case against former President Donald Trump. This decision reflects the court's selective approach to the cases it chooses to hear, particularly those involving high-profile figures and sensitive legal issues.

The court is also preparing to address several other critical issues, including medical marijuana, "ghost guns," and transgender care bans. These cases are part of a fraught new term for the Supreme Court, with the nation closely watching the justices' decisions amidst concerns about their ethics and impartiality.

President Joe Biden has also been in the news for calling for significant reforms to the Supreme Court, including term limits for justices and an enforceable ethics code. However, any such changes would require congressional approval, making them a long shot.

Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court.

As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court is gearing up for its March argument session, which is set to begin on March 24 and conclude on April 2. During this period, the justices will hear arguments in nine significant cases spread over six days.

One of the notable cases is *Louisiana v. Callais*, consolidated with *Robinson v. Callais*, scheduled for March 24. This case involves a challenge to a lower court's decision to strike down a congressional voting map that created a second majority-Black district in Louisiana.

Another important case is *EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining*, set for March 25, which addresses whether challenges to the EPA's denial of exemptions from the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standards program must be litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This is part of a broader scrutiny of EPA actions, as seen in *Oklahoma v. EPA*, also scheduled for March 25, which questions the EPA’s denial of states’ plans to implement national air quality standards.

The court will also hear *FCC v. Consumers’ Research* on March 26, a case that challenges a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that invalidated parts of an FCC program aimed at improving internet and phone services in underserved areas. This case raises constitutional questions about the delegation of Congress’s power to the FCC.

Other significant cases include *Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission* on March 31, which examines whether Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by denying a tax exemption to a religious organization, and *Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic* on April 2, which involves a challenge to South Carolina’s decision to end Planned Parenthood’s participation in its Medicaid program.

In addition to these upcoming arguments, the Supreme Court has recently been involved in other notable legal disputes. For instance, the court turned down the Trump administration’s request to pause the briefing in several cases related to EPA regulations and agency actions, indicating that these cases will move forward as scheduled.

For now, these cases highlight the diverse and critical issues that the Supreme Court will be addressing in the coming weeks.

Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don’t forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis of Supreme Court news.