December delivered constitutional chaos with two emergency Supreme Court cases and a preview of January's landmark docket. From federal agents facing $10,000 bounties in Chicago to immigration judges exposing government corruption, plus six blockbuster cases that could reshape American law for decades.

• Trump v. Illinois - Presidential emergency powers meet federalism

• Margolin v. NAIJ - Immigration judges challenge speech restrictions

• January Preview - Six constitutional blockbusters including transgender sports, gun rights, and executive authority

1. Chevron v. Plaquemines - $744M WWII contractor liability
2. Little v. Hecox - Idaho transgender sports ban vs. equality rights
3. CSX Galette v. NJ Transit - State corporation sovereign immunity
4. Wolford v. Lopez - Hawaii gun permits vs. Second Amendment
5. M&K Employee Solutions v. IAM - $4.4M pension timing dispute
6. Trump v. Cook - Presidential removal of Fed Governor

• Supreme Court denies emergency stays in both cases within one week

• Federal agents operate under bounties during immigration enforcement

• Fourth Circuit orders discovery into corrupted government complaint systems

• January docket threatens to reshape constitutional rights for a generation

• $10,000 bounties placed on federal immigration officers

• Texas National Guard deployed to Illinois over state objections

• Immigration judges may bypass internal procedures to challenge speech restrictions

• Six January cases spanning Second Amendment, transgender equality, sovereign immunity, executive authority, pension law, and WWII contractor liability

• Constitutional decisions affecting daily life from mortgage rates to athletic participation

Stakes: These cases determine the balance between presidential emergency powers and federalism, federal employee speech rights versus government control, and fundamental constitutional protections that affect millions of Americans.

• Can presidents deploy military domestically without meeting rebellion standards?

• Can government silence employees then force them through corrupted complaint processes?

• Will January cases reshape constitutional law for the next thirty years?

Bottom Line: December's emergency cases and January's preview demonstrate how Supreme Court decisions directly impact daily American life - from federal law enforcement to mortgage rates to constitutional rights.

Call to Action: Share this episode with someone who thinks Supreme Court cases don't affect daily life - because these decisions determine everything from your mortgage rate to fundamental constitutional protections.

• Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube: Search "The High Court Report"

• LinkedIn: @TheHighCourtReport

• Questions: LinkedIn or Email ([email protected])

This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.

Today's case is United States v. Skrmetti. I chose this case to segue into the 2026 Supreme Court calendar. In January, the Supreme Court hears two transgender cases that in some ways offshoot from Skrmetti. Here are a few details on these cases. We'll be sure to preview these cases soon. Also, check out our July 7th Roundup episode for more details.

Little v. Hecox (Idaho) | Case No. 24-38 | Docket Link: Here

1. Background: Idaho's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" banning transgender women from women's sports teams
2. Key Player: Lindsay Hecox, transgender student at Boise State University
3. Ninth Circuit Reasoning: Applied heightened scrutiny; found likely Equal Protection violations
4. Post-Skrmetti Impact: How the medical treatment precedent affects sports participation

West Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-43 | Docket Link: Here

1. Background: West Virginia's H.B. 3293 categorical sports ban
2. Key Player: B.P.J., 14-year-old transgender student with amended birth certificate
3. Unique Factors: Puberty blockers, competitive performance, individual circumstances
4. Fourth Circuit's Approach: Case-by-case analysis vs. categorical rules
5. Strategic Litigation: Why B.P.J. argued for waiting on Skrmetti decision

Here's the background on United States v. Skrmetti.

Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB1) in 2023, prohibiting healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to minors for treating gender dysphoria or helping them transition, while still allowing these treatments for other medical conditions like congenital defects or precocious puberty. Three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor sued under the Equal Protection Clause, with a district court initially blocking the law after finding transgender individuals deserve heightened constitutional protection. The Sixth Circuit reversed, ruling the law only needed to meet the lowest constitutional standard (rational basis review), prompting the Supreme Court to take the case.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the law classifies based on age and medical use rather than sex or transgender status, requiring only rational basis review which the law satisfies.

Analysis (3 sentences): The Court rejected arguments that the law discriminates based on sex, finding that it applies equally to all minors regardless of biological sex and merely removes certain diagnoses from treatable conditions—similar to how pregnancy-related exclusions don't automatically constitute sex discrimination under precedent like Geduldig v. Aiello. The majority applied the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny (rational basis review), deferring to Tennessee's legislative judgment about protecting minors from potentially harmful medical treatments in an area of scientific uncertainty. The dissenters argued the law clearly discriminates against transgender individuals and should face heightened constitutional scrutiny, warning that the majority's approach undermines equal protection for vulnerable minorities and ignores the real-world impact of denying medically necessary care.

This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.

Today's episode is FEC v. Cruz. I chose this case for the interplay with a case this term, NRSC v. FEC. Listen to the arguments regarding standing, free speech, and political corruption.

Here's the story of FEC v. Cruz.

Senator Ted Cruz loaned $260,000 to his 2018 reelection campaign, but federal law limits candidates to recovering only $250,000 from post-election contributions, leaving Cruz unable to recover the final $10,000. Cruz and his campaign committee sued the Federal Election Commission, arguing this loan repayment restriction in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violates the First Amendment by deterring candidates from self-funding their campaigns. The case centered on whether limiting post-election contributions for loan repayment serves a legitimate anti-corruption purpose or unconstitutionally burdens political speech.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the federal law limiting candidates to recovering $250,000 in personal loans from post-election contributions violates the First Amendment because the government failed to prove this restriction prevents actual corruption or its appearance.

The Court applied strict scrutiny to this campaign finance restriction, requiring the government to demonstrate the law prevents "quid pro quo" corruption with actual evidence rather than mere speculation—which the FEC could not provide despite most states having no such limits. The majority emphasized that restricting loan repayment creates barriers to entry for new candidates and challengers who rely on personal loans to fund competitive campaigns. The dissenters argued the majority was too demanding in requiring concrete evidence of corruption, warning that weakening campaign finance laws could increase the influence of wealthy donors and undermine electoral integrity.

Case: Trump v. United States | Case No. 23-939 | Docket Link: 23-939

This week, we revisit the 2024 landmark ruling on Presidential immunity to provide context for our current coverage of Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook. These cases collectively explore the boundaries of Article II authority: (1) when can the President fire a person without cause when Congress permitted the person's firing only for cause; and (2) when can courts second guess the President's for cause determinations.

In a 6-3 ruling in favor of presidential immunity, the Supreme Court established a three-tiered hierarchy for evaluating the criminal prosecution of a former President:

1. Core Constitutional Powers: The President possesses absolute immunity for actions falling within his "conclusive and preclusive" constitutional authority (e.g., the pardon power, veto power, or recognition of foreign nations).
2. Official Acts: The President is entitled to presumptive immunity for all other official acts within the "outer perimeter" of his responsibilities. The government must prove that prosecution would pose no danger of intrusion on the Executive Branch's function to rebut this.
3. Unofficial Acts: The President holds no immunity for unofficial, private conduct.

1. The Majority Opinion (Roberts): The Court prioritized the "energetic executive," arguing that the threat of future prosecution would "chill" a President's ability to make bold, split-second decisions. By citing Fitzgerald and Youngstown, the Court emphasized that the Executive must be able to manage the Justice Department without judicial "second-guessing" of motives.
2. The Evidentiary Bar: Crucially, the Court ruled that in a prosecution for unofficial acts, the Government cannot introduce evidence of official acts (such as private conversations with advisors) to prove the President's intent or context. This creates a significant "evidentiary shield" that complicates the prosecution of private conduct.
3. The Dissents (Sotomayor & Jackson): Justice Sotomayor issued a stark warning, arguing the decision creates a "law-free zone" around the President. She contended that the majority's focus on "chilling" presidential action ignores the greater danger of an "insulated" President who can use the tools of the state (like the military or DOJ) to commit crimes with impunity. Justice Jackson focused on the "interbranch accountability" gap, noting that the ruling shifts the power to determine criminal liability from the law to the Judiciary's ad hoc classification of "official" vs. "unofficial."

1. First in History: This was the first time in the 235-year history of the United States that the Supreme Court addressed whether a former President is immune from federal criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.
2. A Divided Bench: The ruling fell along a 6-3 split, reflecting a deep ideological divide regarding the "Unitary Executive" theory and the structural protections of Article II.

This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.

Today's case is Biden v. Nebraska. I chose this case due to the statutory interpretation parallels with the Trump Tariff Cases. When listening, pay close attention to the justices' ways to decipher text and how the major questions doctrine plays into their thinking.

Here's the story of Biden v. Nebraska:

The Biden Administration tried to cancel $430 billion in student loan debt under the HEROES Act, claiming emergency powers from COVID-19 justified forgiving up to $20,000 per borrower. Six states sued, arguing the Education Secretary exceeded his legal authority to make such massive loan forgiveness without explicit congressional approval. The case reached the Supreme Court after lower courts blocked the program with a nationwide injunction.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the HEROES Act does not give the Education Secretary authority to cancel $430 billion in student loans, because the power to "waive or modify" existing law cannot be stretched to completely rewrite federal student loan programs.

The Court applied the "major questions doctrine," requiring clear congressional authorization when agencies claim power over issues of vast economic and political significance—here affecting 43 million borrowers and costing nearly half a trillion dollars. The majority distinguished between modest administrative adjustments (which the HEROES Act allows) and fundamental program overhauls (which require explicit congressional approval). The dissenters argued the majority was improperly second-guessing expert agency judgment and that emergency powers should be read more broadly during genuine national crises like the pandemic.

This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.

In this case, Twitter claimed that federal law shielded them from liability for terrorists who used their platform for terrorist acts. I chose this case because it relates to arguments that Cox raised in Cox v. Sony Music Entertainment. In Cox, Cox argued that this case, Twitter v. Taamneh, created heightened proof necessary to establish liability for its' users actions.

Here's the story of Twitter v. Taamneh:

Families of victims killed in a 2017 ISIS terrorist attack at the Reina nightclub in Istanbul sued Twitter, Facebook, and Google under federal anti-terrorism law, claiming these social media companies aided and abetted ISIS by allowing the terrorist group to use their platforms for recruitment, fundraising, and propaganda while profiting from advertisements placed on ISIS content. The plaintiffs argued that the companies' recommendation algorithms actively promoted ISIS content to users likely to engage with it, and that the companies failed to adequately remove ISIS-related accounts and content despite knowing about their presence. The Ninth Circuit allowed the lawsuit to proceed, but the social media companies appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for aiding and abetting liability because the social media companies' general provision of platforms and passive failure to remove ISIS content did not constitute the "knowing and substantial assistance" required under federal law.

The Court applied the Halberstam framework, which requires defendants to consciously participate in specific wrongful acts—meaning companies must actively help with particular terrorist attacks, not just allow terrorists to use their platforms like any other users. The Court distinguished between active misconduct (which creates liability) and passive failure to act (which generally does not), ruling that simply allowing ISIS to use social media platforms without special treatment amounts to passive inaction rather than culpable assistance. This decision protects communication providers from automatic liability for knowing that bad actors use their services, instead requiring evidence of intentional participation in specific terrorist acts.

Overview

This episode delivers post-oral argument analysis and predictions for three major Supreme Court cases heard during the December 2025 argument session. We break down the key exchanges, judicial fault lines, and likely outcomes in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC (campaign finance limits), Hamm v. Smith (intellectual disability determinations in death penalty cases), and FS Credit v. Saba (implied private rights of action in securities law).

NRSC v. FEC: Campaign Finance Revolution

• JD Vance standing issues and Article III requirements

• Chief Justice Roberts challenges coordinated expenditure "fictions"

• Justice Kagan's systematic dismantling of Republican arguments

• Super PAC dominance versus party strength dynamics

• Justice Alito's revealing "who benefits" question

Hamm v. Smith: Life-or-Death IQ Determinations

• Joseph Smith's brutal 1997 murder and five IQ test scores (75, 74, 72, 78, 74)

• Alabama's collective scoring approach versus federal holistic evaluation

• Chief Justice Roberts' "results-oriented" methodology critique

• Justice Jackson's clinical expertise emphasis

• Solicitor General's compromise "circle back" approach

FS Credit v. Saba: Securities Law Private Enforcement

• Activist investor challenges to fund management poison pills

• Justice Kavanaugh as potential swing vote on "anomalous" state court outcomes

• Legislative history debate between Sotomayor and textualists

• Justice Gorsuch's separation of powers concerns

• Practical implications for investment fund governance

Episode Highlights

Campaign Finance Revelations:

• Chief Justice Roberts: "I don't know in substance what the difference is" between coordinated expenditures and direct contributions

• Justice Kagan's methodical exposure of existing circumvention loopholes

• Republican counsel's admission about partisan fundraising advantages

Death Penalty Constitutional Stakes:

• Chief Justice Roberts challenging Alabama's statistical consistency

• Justice Jackson emphasizing clinical complexity over mechanical score-counting

• Three-way methodological split among Alabama, Smith, and federal government

Securities Law Enforcement:

• Justice Kavanaugh's practical concerns about "very bizarre" state court relegation

• Paul Clement's "nugatory statute" argument about defensive-only interpretation

• Justice Gorsuch's emphasis on separation of powers in implied rights creation

Host Predictions:

• NRSC wins 6-3 (Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh plus Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch)

• Hamm adopts Solicitor General's compromise approach

• Saba wins 5-4 with Justice Barrett as deciding vote

FS Credit v. Saba | Fund Feud: Forcing Fiduciary Fairness Through Federal Lawsuits | Argument Date: 12/10/25 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 gives private plaintiffs a federal cause of action to seek rescission of contracts that allegedly violate the Act.

The Supreme Court will decide whether activist investors can sue investment funds directly in federal court when funds adopt governance provisions that allegedly violate federal securities law. Four closed-end funds adopted Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act provisions to strip voting rights from shareholders acquiring more than 10% ownership, prompting Saba Capital to seek rescission under Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act. The case creates a fundamental clash over private enforcement of securities laws versus exclusive SEC regulatory authority, with implications for millions of Americans who invest in mutual funds and closed-end funds.

Question Presented:

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner (FS Credit) and Respondents (BlackRock): Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D.C.
• United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners: Max E. Schulman, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice
• For Respondent: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, VA

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview

[00:01:23] Oral Argument Begins

[00:01:36] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:03:40] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:19:29] Petitioner Round Robin Questions

[00:30:53] United States as Amicus Curiae Opening Statement

[00:32:17] United States Free for All Questions

[00:42:11] United States Round Robin Questions

[00:46:27] Respondent Opening Statement

[00:48:55] Respondent Free for All Questions

[01:16:48] Respondent Round Robin Questions

[01:16:58] Petitioner Rebuttal

Hamm v. Smith | Case No. 24-872 | Oral Argument Date: 12/10/25 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: When someone takes multiple IQ tests to prove intellectual disability in a capital case, do courts look at all the scores together, or can one low score alone save their life?

The Supreme Court will decide whether courts must evaluate multiple IQ scores collectively or whether a single qualifying score triggers constitutional protection in death penalty cases. This decision affects hundreds of current death row inmates and reshapes capital litigation nationwide.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner (Hamm): Robert M. Overing, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Montgomery, Alabama argued for Petitioner Hamm.
• United States as Amicus Curaie in Support of Petitioner: Harry Graver, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice.
• For Respondent (Smith): Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D.C.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview

[00:01:28] Oral Argument Begins

[00:01:43] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:03:58] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:20:43] Petitioner Round Robin Questions

[00:44:36] United States as Amicus Curiae Opening Statement

[00:45:47] United States Free for All Questions

[00:55:27] United States Round Robin Questions

[01:21:13] Respondent Opening Statement

[01:24:00] Respondent Free for All Questions

[01:51:28] Respondent Round Robin Questions

[02:01:18] Petitioner Rebuttal

Summary:

Analysis of the December 8, 2025 Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, examining how the justices signaled their likely approach to presidential removal power and independent agencies.

Key Topics Covered:

1. Chief Justice Roberts' Strategic Questioning

• Focused on workability and implementation details
• Challenged quality of precedents supporting Slaughter's position
• Unusual volume of questions suggests engagement with Trump's arguments

2. Justice Sotomayor's Stare Decisis Defense

• Mounted strongest defense of Humphrey's Executor (1935)
• Emphasized 90-year precedential history
• Questioned Court's willingness to overturn longstanding constitutional precedent

3. Predicted 6-3 Ruling for Trump

• Court's emergency docket orders already revealed likely outcome
• Three-step analysis: presidential removal power + FTC executive authority + distinguish/overrule Humphrey's

4. Competing Predictions About Impact

• Slaughter's team: regulatory chaos, undermined business planning
• Trump's team: "sky did not fall" in previous agency restructurings

5. The "Faithful Execution" Thread

• Justice Gorsuch's devastating questioning about Take Care Clause
• Exposed contradiction in Slaughter's constitutional theory
• "Ruinous fines" vs. misdemeanor enforcement distinction crumbles

6. The Defense Department Problem

• Congress could restructure Cabinet departments as protected commissions
• Slaughter's logic threatens executive unity across government
• No limiting principle to prevent wholesale agency insulation

Bonus: Trump v. United States Framework

• "Conclusive and preclusive" authority test from immunity case
• Both sides weaponized language for removal power debate
• Constitutional framework that shaped entire argument

Next Episode: Analysis of post-argument developments and decision timeline