Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Record analysis
AI-compiled from the cited opinions below
Supreme Court of the United States decisions authored between January 2025 and June 2026. Cases address election administration, criminal procedure, environmental and agency regulation, and commercial disputes.
Election law
Rulings addressed campaign finance and Federal Election Commission procedures.
In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a Missouri jury awarded damages to plaintiff John Durnell on a state failure-to-warn claim, finding that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma because the product label lacked a cancer warning. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly preempts such state-law claims. Under FIFRA’s uniformity provision (7 U.S.C. §136v(b)), states may not impose labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” those required by EPA. EPA has repeatedly registered glyphosate-based products like Roundup after determining that the pesticide is not likely carcinogenic and that no cancer warning is needed on the label; federal law then requires manufacturers to use that exact EPA-approved label unless the agency later approves or mandates a change. Because Durnell’s tort claim would compel Monsanto to add a warning that EPA has not required, it imposes a labeling obligation different from federal law and is therefore preempted, consistent with precedents such as Bates v. Dow Agrosciences and Riegel v. Medtronic.
business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal powertorts & liability
The Supreme Court case concerned whether U.S. nationals could sue Cuban government-owned companies under the 1996 Helms-Burton Act for “trafficking” in property confiscated by Cuba after 1959, or whether those instrumentalities remained immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) unless one of its enumerated exceptions applied. The Court held that the Helms-Burton Act itself abrogates sovereign immunity for Cuban agencies and instrumentalities, so plaintiffs need not also satisfy an FSIA exception. It reached this conclusion because the statute expressly creates a private right of action against “any agency or instrumentality of a foreign state,” places jurisdiction under the general federal-question statute rather than the FSIA’s provision, and gives the President broad authority to suspend suits—features inconsistent with requiring FSIA exceptions that would be nearly impossible to meet under the U.S. embargo on Cuba. The decision reversed the D.C. Circuit and remanded for further proceedings.
business & regulatorypropertyprocedurefederal power
In Pitchford v. Cain, the Supreme Court considered a Batson claim raised by Terry Pitchford, who was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Mississippi after the prosecutor used peremptory strikes against four of five Black prospective jurors. The Court held that the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established Batson precedents and unreasonably found waiver under the AEDPA standards, reversing the Fifth Circuit and remanding the case. The trial court had raised a prima facie Batson objection at step one, accepted the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations at step two, but never completed step three by allowing defense counsel to rebut those reasons as pretextual or making findings on the issue. The Court explained that Pitchford did not waive the claim, as counsel attempted to raise it again after jury selection and the trial court assured that the objection was preserved in the record; the state court’s conclusion that a separate pretext argument was required was an unreasonable reading of the record and Batson procedure.
The case concerned whether restitution ordered under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) qualifies as criminal punishment, which would make it subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause; petitioner Ellingburg, who committed his offense before the MVRA’s enactment but was later sentenced to pay $7,567.25 in restitution, challenged his ongoing obligation on that ground after the Eighth Circuit ruled that MVRA restitution is not punishment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that restitution under the MVRA is criminal punishment for Ex Post Facto purposes. The Court reached this conclusion by examining the statute’s text and structure, which label restitution a “penalty” imposed only on convicted defendants at sentencing alongside imprisonment and fines, place the government in the adversarial role, and codify the provisions in Title 18 under “Miscellaneous Sentencing Provisions”; the Court also noted that victims cannot initiate or control the process as they would in a civil proceeding and that prior precedents have treated such restitution as punishment.
The case concerned President Trump’s October 2025 order federalizing roughly 300 Illinois and Texas National Guard members under 10 U.S.C. §12406(3) to protect federal immigration officers and property in the Chicago area amid reported obstructions and protests. The Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order blocking the federalization and deployment; after the Seventh Circuit declined to stay that order in full, the Government sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The Court denied the application for a stay. It held that the statutory phrase “regular forces” likely refers to the regular U.S. military rather than civilian law-enforcement agencies, so the President may invoke §12406(3) only when he lacks authority or capacity to use the military itself to execute federal law—an authority constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act. Because the Government had identified no statutory or constitutional basis permitting the military to perform the protective functions at issue, it had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits at this preliminary stage.
The case concerned NetChoice’s request for emergency Supreme Court relief to block enforcement of a Mississippi law regulating online platforms, after a district court had enjoined the law but a stay allowed it to take effect. The Court denied the application to vacate the stay. Justice Kavanaugh concurred, explaining that NetChoice had not shown the balance of harms and equities favored interim relief at this stage. He added that NetChoice was nevertheless likely to succeed on the merits, because the law would probably violate the First Amendment rights of NetChoice’s members under precedents such as Moody v. NetChoice and Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., consistent with injunctions issued by multiple other federal district courts against similar state laws.
