9robes

Children born on American soil are automatically U.S. citizens, no matter what their parents' immigration status is. The decision strikes down an executive order that would have stripped citizenship from an estimated 150,000 to 250,000 babies born annually in the United States.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

Political parties can spend unlimited amounts of money directly supporting their own candidates. In a 6-3 decision, what was once capped is now wide open. The ruling means a single donor can now funnel over half a million dollars to a candidate through a party committee, sidestepping the contribution limits that have governed campaigns for decades. The decision has ignited fierce debate about whether this protects free speech or opens the door to corruption.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court has decided that schools can ban transgender girls from competing on girls' sports teams based on biological sex. The decision affects how schools across the country handle transgender athletes and raises fundamental questions about who gets protected by civil rights laws and the Constitution.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The President now controls dozens of federal agencies that were designed to make decisions based on expertise and evidence rather than politics. In a 6 to 3 majority, the Court ruled the President can fire the heads of independent agencies whenever he wants. For any reason or no reason at all. That means agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, which polices unfair business practices and protects consumers, now answer directly to the President instead of operating at arm's length from politics. The decision overturned a 91-year-old Supreme Court ruling that had protected these agencies from political interference.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

For the first time in 111 years, a President tried to fire a Federal Reserve Governor. The Supreme Court stopped him. The decision determines whether the President can fire officials who run independent agencies whenever he wants, or whether courts and Congress can actually limit that power.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

Your phone's location history is now legally protected, and police cannot access it without convincing a judge they have good reason. Even just a couple of hours worth of data. The decision protects millions of Americans who use Google's location tracking feature without realizing how precisely it records their movements. It's a significant win for privacy rights in the digital age, though questions remain about exactly how police can use location data going forward.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court decided that voting and receiving ballots are two separate things under federal law. States, not the federal government, get to decide how much time they allow for ballots to arrive after Election Day. In a five-to-four ruling, the Court said states can count mail-in ballots that arrive days after Election Day, as long as they were mailed by Election Day itself. This decision overturned a lower court and sided with Mississippi in a case that pitted voting access against election security concerns. The ruling immediately affects roughly thirty states that already allow late-arriving ballots and could influence how elections are run across the country for years to come.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court has struck down a Hawaii law that required gun owners to get explicit permission from business owners before carrying concealed handguns into stores, restaurants, and gas stations. The 6-to-3 decision means millions of Americans with permits to carry guns have a constitutional right to bring them into private businesses, even if owners don't want them there. The ruling could invalidate similar laws in California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court just made it much harder for asylum seekers to get their cases heard. The Court ruled 6 to 3 that people waiting at the U.S. border don't have the right to request asylum unless they've already physically crossed into the country. That means border officers can turn people away at the gate without ever processing their claims, even if they're fleeing violence or persecution. The decision changes decades of immigration practice.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court just made it nearly impossible for hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Haitian immigrants to challenge the government's decision to end their legal status in the United States. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court ruled that judges cannot review whether the government followed its own rules when ending Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, a program that allows people to stay in America when their home countries are too dangerous. For the people affected, this means losing the legal right to work, live, and build lives they have established over more than a decade. For the broader legal system, it means the government can now make major immigration decisions with virtually no court oversight.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court ruled that federal approval of the product's label blocks state lawsuits, even when someone claims the label should have warned about cancer risks. The decision affects millions of Americans who use pesticides, medications, and medical devices, potentially making it much harder to hold companies accountable when they get hurt.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court has ruled that companies cannot be sued under federal law for knowingly providing the tools and technology that governments use to identify, arrest, and torture religious minorities. The case involved Cisco Systems, accused of selling surveillance technology to China that helped authorities persecute Falun Gong practitioners. The ruling means victims of state-sponsored torture have lost a crucial legal avenue for justice.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

For decades, foreign governments had implicit immunity from being sued in American courts. The Supreme Court punched a major hole in that shield, ruling that Americans can now sue Cuban government agencies for property seized more than 60 years ago. The decision could reshape how the U.S. handles disputes with hostile nations and could have ripple effects far beyond Cuba.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A Louisiana inmate's head was forcibly shaved despite his Rastafarian faith requiring him to never cut his hair. When he tried to sue the prison officers responsible, the Supreme Court blocked his case. The decision means prisoners who suffer religious freedom violations in prison may have almost no way to get money damages, even when officials clearly violated federal law.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Pung family's home in Michigan was worth nearly $200,000. They owed the county $2,242 in property taxes. The county foreclosed and sold the house at auction for $76,000. Pung sued to argue that he should have received fair market value for the forced sale of his home. The Supreme Court has ruled selling at auction price is constitutional. The decision raises urgent questions about how far government can go when collecting debts from ordinary Americans.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The government now has a lower barrier to deporting longtime permanent residents. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that border officers can treat green card holders as first-time visitors trying to enter the country, stripping away legal protections that have existed for decades, even if those officers have no solid evidence of wrongdoing at the moment. The consequences are tangible and can include confiscated green cards, lost jobs and years trapped in legal limbo. This case will affect how border agents treat millions of Americans with permanent resident status.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A man convicted of killing a child in one of America's most famous missing-person cases will stay in prison after the Supreme Court sided with prosecutors over concerns about his confession. The decision matters far beyond this one case. It sets limits on when federal courts can step in to fix problems in state trials, and it shows how confessions obtained through police interrogation can be harder to challenge than many people realize.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

In a stunning unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government went too far when it prosecuted a Texas man solely for owning a gun while using marijuana regularly. The case, *United States v. Hemani*, decided June 18, 2026, shows that even in our deeply divided country, nine justices agreed that the government cannot strip away constitutional rights without a much stronger justification than it offered here.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A man facing 300 years in prison made a deal with the government: plead guilty to one crime, drop nine others, and give up the right to appeal. But the Supreme Court just said there are limits to how far that deal can go. In a decision that affects thousands of criminal cases every year, the justices ruled that defendants cannot be forced to accept sentences that are so fundamentally unfair they shake public confidence in the courts, even if they signed away their appeal rights.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A woman forced to take psychiatric medications against her will thought she had found a way out. After signing a settlement agreement to end her case in Maryland state court, she hired a new lawyer and rushed to federal court, hoping a federal judge would declare the state court agreement unconstitutional. In a decision that crosses unusual ideological lines, the Court ruled that once you lose in state court, you cannot simply run to federal court to overturn that decision while your state appeal is still pending. The ruling means millions of Americans may find their only path to federal review is through the Supreme Court itself, a nearly impossible hurdle for ordinary people.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

Another unanimous Supreme Court decision has made it much harder for companies to use a legal technicality to escape responsibility for injuries they cause. The case involved a man who was hit by a car driven by a construction company employee, but nearly lost his right to sue because he forgot to mention the accident on his bankruptcy paperwork. The Court said that's not fair, and lower courts need to look at the whole story before punishing someone for a paperwork mistake.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A major Supreme Court decision just made it much harder for everyday investors to sue when mutual funds break federal rules. The court ruled six to three that private shareholders cannot use a key provision of federal investment law to take fund managers to court. Instead, enforcement falls to government regulators. For millions of Americans with retirement accounts and mutual funds, this means less power to challenge how their money is managed.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

This case reveals how the Constitution still protects one of the rights the Founders fought hardest to preserve. Ahmad Abouammo sold his employer's secrets to a Saudi official for $300,000. When the FBI showed up at his Seattle home to question him, he panicked. He went upstairs, created a fake invoice on his computer, and emailed it to an agent. The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the government cannot drag you across the country to stand trial for a crime you committed at home.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

This ruling protects generic drug competition while still holding companies accountable if they cross the line into deliberately promoting patented uses. For patients and consumers, it means generic drugs will remain a competitive force in the market. For brand-name companies, it means they need clear evidence of intentional wrongdoing, not just circumstantial suggestions, to win these lawsuits.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

In a unanimous decision that could reshape how the government punishes securities fraud, the Supreme Court ruled that regulators can force wrongdoers to surrender their ill-gotten gains without proving that investors actually lost money. The ruling sounds technical, but it has real consequences. It gives the SEC a powerful tool to strip fraudsters of their profits, even in cases where victims escaped financial harm.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

For everyday citizens, this ruling means government agencies have more power to punish companies without a jury involved, at least initially. Whether that is good or bad depends on your view of agency power and corporate accountability. What is clear is that the practical effect of this decision will ripple through federal enforcement for years to come.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court has hit pause on a court-ordered map and keeps Alabama’s contested congressional districts in place for now. The ruling applies a legal standard the Court itself rewrote just weeks earlier and signals the Court may be ready to make it much harder to prove that states are deliberately discriminating against Black voters. The case reveals a deepening divide on the Court about what counts as evidence of racial discrimination and who gets to decide election rules when time is running short.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

Gary Richard Whitton sits on Florida’s death row after a jury convicted him of murder based partly on testimony from a jailhouse informant. But that informant lied to the jury, and prosecutors knew it. Now the Supreme Court has stepped in to clarify when a trial includes false testimony how courts figure out if that lie actually changed the outcome. The answer matters not just for Whitton, but for how courts handle convictions across the country.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The case highlights a real tension in how courts balance broad legislative choices against individual fairness. When Congress changes sentencing rules but refuses to apply them retroactively, should judges have any ability to consider that gap in individual cases? The majority said no. The dissent said judges should at least have the chance to look at the full picture. That disagreement will shape compassionate release cases for years to come.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A man serving life in prison for murder convinced his own trial judge that serious doubts about his guilt justified cutting his sentence. But the Supreme Court just shut that door. In a decision that could affect thousands of federal prisoners, the Court ruled that even compelling evidence of innocence cannot be used to reduce a sentence through compassionate release. The decision leaves a troubling gap: prisoners who may be innocent but missed legal deadlines have nowhere left to turn.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A Black man sentenced to death in Mississippi may get a new trial because a judge shut down his lawyer's chance to challenge whether prosecutors illegally removed Black jurors. The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that trial judges cannot silence these critical objections and then claim the defendant gave up the right to make them. The decision exposes how procedural rules can trap defendants, especially in cases involving race.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A unanimous Supreme Court decision this week protects thousands of delivery workers from being forced into secret arbitration proceedings, even when they never leave their home state. The ruling could reshape how companies handle disputes with the workers who get packages to your door.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court just shut down an appeals court for deciding a case based on a legal question that neither side actually asked the court to consider. In *Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges*, the justices unanimously reversed an appeals court that tried to rewrite the rules governing federal employee complaints, all on its own initiative. The case highlights how political attitudes can change the system Congress created to handle workplace disputes. It's a fundamental tension in American law.

When four companies tried to leave a pension plan in 2018, they thought they knew what they owed. Then the bill nearly tripled. A single change in how the pension fund's accountants calculated the debt that was made months after the official measurement date pushed the companies' combined bill from roughly three million dollars to roughly ten million dollars. Now the Supreme Court has ruled that such changes are legal, a decision that could reshape how companies budget for leaving pension plans nationwide.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A company that lost control of Cuban docks 60 years ago just won a major legal victory. The Supreme Court ruled that cruise lines operating those same docks today can be held financially responsible, even though the company's original operating contract would have expired long ago. The decision opens the door to potentially massive payouts and raises thorny questions about how far back in time companies can be held liable for using property seized by foreign governments.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court just walked away from a case that could have changed how courts decide whether someone with an intellectual disability can be executed. Joseph Clifton Smith took five IQ tests. Four of them showed he was intellectually disabled. One didn't. Now his life depends on which number the courts believe matters most, and the nation's highest court refused to say.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

When you sign an arbitration agreement with your employer, you're agreeing to let a private arbitrator settle disputes instead of going to court. But what happens if that arbitrator rules against you and orders you to pay thousands of dollars? Can your employer simply walk away from the federal court system entirely? The Supreme Court just said no. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled that federal courts keep the power to review arbitration awards even after sending a case to private arbitration. For workers like Adrian Jules, who lost his job and his arbitration case, this decision means courts can still check whether the arbitration process was fair.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A truck driver who lost his leg in a crash just won a major victory for safety at the Supreme Court. The justices unanimously ruled that companies arranging freight shipments can be held legally responsible if they carelessly hire unsafe carriers. The decision overturns a legal shield that had protected brokers from lawsuits in much of the country and opens the door for injured workers and accident victims to seek damages from the middlemen who arrange trucking jobs.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court has fundamentally weakened one of the most important tools for protecting minority voting rights. In a 6-3 decision, the Court made it nearly impossible for Black voters to challenge congressional maps that split their communities into pieces, even when those maps were drawn specifically to dilute their voting power. The ruling will reshape how states can draw election districts and could affect which party controls Congress for years to come.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court declared a First Amendment injury occurs when the government secretly demands the names and personal information of people who donate to advocacy groups. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled that when a state official issues a formal demand for donor lists, the damage to free speech and free association happens immediately, even before anyone is punished for refusing. The case involved a New Jersey anti-abortion nonprofit, but the ruling protects donors to any cause, from civil rights groups to religious organizations.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

When Army Specialist Winston Tyler Hencely threw himself in front of a suicide bomber at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, he was trying to save his fellow soldiers. The bomber, Ahmad Nayeb, had been hired and supervised by Fluor Corporation, a major military contractor. The Army's own investigation blamed Fluor for the attack, saying the company failed to properly watch Nayeb and let him move freely around the base. Now, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that Hencely can sue Fluor in court, even though the injury happened during wartime on a foreign military base. The decision splits the Court and raises urgent questions about who is responsible when private companies working for the military make deadly mistakes.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A company that waits nearly three years to move its lawsuit to federal court cannot simply ask a judge to let it slide. The Supreme Court just made a unanimous decision to make that crystal clear. The decision matters because it affects how quickly cases get resolved and which courts get to decide them, but more importantly, it shows the Court is willing to enforce rules strictly, even when a company has good reasons for breaking them.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

This case shows how courts balance the competing concerns of protecting people from unreasonable police stops while giving officers enough flexibility to investigate genuine threats. The Supreme Court sided with police power here. But Justice Jackson’s dissent reminds us that reasonable people can disagree about what suspicious behavior actually means, and that the Supreme Court doesn’t need to settle every disagreement among lower courts.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

This case is about which court gets to decide whether a company pays for the damage it causes. State courts have historically been friendlier to environmental lawsuits and injury claims. Federal courts are often seen as more business-friendly. By moving cases to federal court, companies can sometimes avoid juries in their home states and face judges with different attitudes toward corporate liability. For Louisiana, which has suffered enormous environmental damage from oil and gas operations, this ruling could make it harder to win pollution cases.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The decision is both sweeping and incomplete. The Court established one clear rule: states cannot regulate talk therapy based on viewpoint.For everyday citizens, the bottom line is this: the Court has made it harder for states to protect minors from conversion therapy through licensing laws, at least when those laws single out one viewpoint while allowing another. Whether states can regulate the practice in other ways remains an open question.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A jury once ordered Cox Communications to pay record labels over a billion dollars for turning a blind eye while its customers illegally downloaded music. Now the Supreme Court has wiped that verdict away, ruling unanimously that internet providers cannot be held responsible for what their customers do online, even when they know it’s happening. The decision protects companies like Cox but leaves music companies and other copyright holders with few practical ways to stop mass piracy.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court just settled a question that affects thousands of people on probation every year: if you disappear while under court supervision, can the government simply extend your probation term to punish you for the time you were gone? The answer, in an 8-1 decision, is no. The ruling protects defendants from a legal trap where they could be punished for breaking probation rules during a period the government claims they were not actually on probation.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

A Vermont police sergeant used a painful arm-twisting technique to force a peaceful protester off the floor during a sit-in. She sued. The Supreme Court just said he cannot be held personally responsible. The decision highlights a growing tension on the Court: how much protection should police officers get from lawsuits, and at what cost to people injured by their actions?music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court's decision corrects a troubling imbalance. Under the appeals court's rule, the person with the most direct experience of being harmed by an unconstitutional law had less access to federal court than someone who had never been prosecuted at all. That made no sense.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

Courts must defer to immigration judges’ decisions on asylum cases in their entirety. These courts decide both the facts and whether those facts meet the legal standard for persecution. It codifies what courts were already doing. Justice Jackson treated the 1996 immigration law as maintaining that earlier practice, reflecting respect for continuity.music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras