Samuel A. Alito jr

The Supreme Court case Mullin v. Al Otro Lado addressed whether the Immigration and Nationality Act requires U.S. officials to inspect and process asylum applications from noncitizens who present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border but remain in Mexico, or only from those who have crossed into the United States. The Court held that an alien standing in Mexico does not “arrive in the United States” by attempting to enter and being turned away under the government’s metering policy; instead, arrival occurs only upon crossing the border. As a result, the INA neither entitles such individuals to inspection nor permits them to apply for asylum until they are physically inside the country. The majority reached this conclusion by applying the ordinary meaning of “arrives in,” supported by surrounding statutory text that distinguishes actual from attempted entry, references to presence near but not at the border, and the presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. immigration law. The decision reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case.

immigration

In Wolford v. Lopez, Hawaii permit holders challenged a state law that banned carrying firearms on private property open to the public unless the owner gave express consent, arguing it violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights after the Court’s Bruen decision recognized a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. The Supreme Court held the law unconstitutional and reversed the Ninth Circuit. The Court reasoned that the restriction fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment by burdening the ability of law-abiding permit holders to carry arms, and that Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues—mostly anti-poaching laws, a single late 19th-century statute, and an 1865 Louisiana law tied to the Black Codes—were not relevantly similar in how or why they limited the right.

guns

In Mullin v. Doe, Syrian and Haitian nationals challenged the Secretary of Homeland Security’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for their countries under the Administrative Procedure Act, seeking court orders to postpone the terminations during litigation; the Haiti plaintiffs also raised an equal protection claim alleging racial motivation. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ grants of interim relief. It held that 8 U.S.C. §1254a(b)(5)(A) bars judicial review of all non-constitutional claims concerning any determination “with respect to” a TPS designation or termination. The Court further held that the equal protection claim was unlikely to succeed, as the administration’s policy of ending every TPS designation that came up for renewal supplied a race-neutral explanation and the cited statements by officials were not overtly racial.

immigrationcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned whether Isabella County, Michigan, violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause or the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause by retaining all proceeds above a $2,241.93 tax debt after foreclosing on and auctioning the Pung family home for $76,008, rather than compensating the owner for the property’s higher assessed or hypothetical fair market value. The Supreme Court held that the proper measure of “just compensation” is the surplus from the actual tax-sale price, not fair market value, and that the Eighth Amendment does not require more. The Court reasoned that English and American law, federal statutes, state practices, and precedents dating back to the Founding have long permitted tax sales while requiring only the return of surplus proceeds above the debt. It further explained that fair-market-value compensation is inappropriate in this context because owners can generally avoid foreclosure through refinancing or sale, and imposing such a rule would render tax sales impractical by often producing net losses for governments. The Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings on any preserved claims of procedural unfairness.

propertytaxes

The case arose when police officers in Washington, D.C., responding to reports of gunfire, approached Donte Carter and others on a sidewalk, asked Carter to lift his pants, observed a bulge, and recovered a stolen firearm after a frisk. Carter moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the encounter became a seizure without reasonable suspicion; the D.C. Superior Court denied the motion, but the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that whether a person would feel free to end the encounter must be assessed from the perspective of an objective person sharing the defendant’s race as a Black man, drawing on studies about differential compliance with police. The Supreme Court denied the government’s petition for certiorari. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented from the denial, contending that the D.C. court’s injection of race into the traditional Fourth Amendment “reasonable person” test conflicts with precedent requiring an objective inquiry and with constitutional principles against race-based treatment of individuals.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Ashley Grayson v. United States, the petitioner challenged the admission at trial of a FaceTime recording in which she offered to pay for a murder, arguing that the recording should have been suppressed under 18 U.S.C. §2515. The Sixth Circuit upheld its admission on the ground that the statute contains a “clean-hands” exception. The Solicitor General later conceded that this exception does not exist. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of the government’s new position. Justice Alito dissented, contending that any error was harmless because other properly admitted evidence, including a separate recording in which Grayson described the same conversation, overwhelmingly proved her guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a high-school student who founded a Students For Life club and sued her school district after administrators refused to approve flyers advertising the club because they showed students holding “Defund Planned Parenthood” signs, claiming the restriction violated the First Amendment. The Seventh Circuit panel rejected the claim, applying the framework from either Tinker v. Des Moines or Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier to determine the applicable level of scrutiny for the school’s censorship. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. In dissent, Justice Alito argued that clarification is needed because Hazelwood’s lenient standard for school-sponsored speech has created ongoing confusion in lower courts, particularly when distinguishing private student expression from government speech under more recent precedents.

free speechabortion

This case arose from Michael Powell’s capital murder conviction in Alabama, which rested on security footage, eyewitness identifications, and ballistic evidence linking him to a gas-station shooting. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the prosecutor’s rebuttal remarks about the location of the murder weapon constituted an improper comment on Powell’s silence in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court denied Alabama’s petition for certiorari. In dissent, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, contended that the decision below directly conflicted with United States v. Robinson (1988) because the trial court had accepted the prosecutor’s explanation that the remarks referred only to a fabricated confession letter introduced by the defense, and because the state court had not clearly relied on independent state-law grounds. Alito argued that the Court should have summarily reversed to correct the misapplication of federal precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves applications by mifepristone manufacturers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro to stay a May 1, 2026, Fifth Circuit order that suspended FDA changes (made in 2021 and 2023) eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement for the drug. Louisiana had challenged those changes under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing they facilitated mail-order abortions and undermined the state's post-Dobbs abortion restrictions. On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the stays, halting the Fifth Circuit order pending resolution of the appeal there and any timely petition for certiorari. The unsigned majority order contained no reasoning. Justices Thomas and Alito each filed dissents, arguing that the manufacturers had not shown irreparable harm and that the underlying conduct implicated federal criminal statutes.

abortionhealthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned an application in Callais v. Louisiana to expedite issuance of the Supreme Court’s judgment declaring Louisiana’s congressional districting map an unconstitutional gerrymander, rather than following the default 32-day waiting period under Supreme Court Rule 45.3. The Court granted the application to issue the judgment forthwith, allowing the district court to address a new map for the 2026 elections. The majority’s reasoning centered on the absence of any rehearing petition from the losing parties, the practical urgency created by an ongoing primary (with early voting already underway and the general election only months away), and the feasibility of prompt remedial action by the legislature or lower court. Concurring justices rejected claims of procedural irregularity or partiality, while the dissent argued that adhering to the default rule would better avoid the appearance of influencing the election process.

electionscivil rightsprocedure

In Callais v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court addressed an application to issue its judgment immediately after ruling that Louisiana’s congressional districting map constituted an unconstitutional gerrymander. The majority granted the request to shorten the standard 32-day waiting period under Supreme Court Rule 45.3, allowing the lower court to proceed without delay. It reasoned that the opposing parties had not indicated any plan to seek rehearing, early voting had already begun, and the general election was only six months away, creating a practical need for prompt action on a replacement map. The dissent argued that following the default timeline would better avoid any appearance of partiality and prevent the Court from influencing ongoing state election procedures.

electionsprocedure

The case concerned whether Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map (SB8), which created a second majority-Black district after a lower court found the prior map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause. A three-judge district court ruled that the map violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. The Court held that compliance with Section 2 can serve as a compelling interest justifying race-based districting only when the statute, properly interpreted, actually requires it. Here, Section 2 did not mandate an additional majority-minority district because it guarantees minority voters only the same opportunity to elect preferred candidates that results from the state’s application of traditional, race-neutral districting criteria. Because no such requirement existed, the state’s predominant use of race lacked a compelling justification and failed strict scrutiny.

electionscivil rights

The case concerned whether Louisiana’s congressional redistricting plan (SB8), which added a second majority-Black district after a lower court found the prior map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court held that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because the Voting Rights Act, as properly interpreted, did not require the State to create an additional majority-minority district. The Court reasoned that Section 2 protects minority voters’ opportunity to elect preferred candidates only to the extent that opportunity arises from the State’s application of permissible, race-neutral districting criteria, and that any intentional use of race in drawing districts triggers strict scrutiny. Because no such requirement existed under the statute, the State lacked a compelling interest to justify the race-based map.

electionscivil rights

The case concerned whether a party may challenge a default judgment as void for improper service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) without regard to timing. Vista-Pro obtained a default judgment against Coney Island in bankruptcy court after allegedly defective mail service; Coney Island did not respond until years later, when enforcement efforts succeeded, and then moved to vacate the judgment. The Supreme Court held that Rule 60(c)(1)’s requirement to file any Rule 60(b) motion within a “reasonable time” applies to 60(b)(4) claims. The Court reasoned that the rule’s plain text and structure impose this limit on all 60(b) motions, with no exception for alleged voidness, and that no constitutional principle or historical practice automatically exempts such claims from timeliness requirements. The Sixth Circuit’s judgment was affirmed.

procedure

The case concerned President Trump’s federalization of roughly 300 Illinois and Texas National Guard members under 10 U.S.C. §12406(3) to protect federal immigration personnel and property in the Chicago area amid protests and alleged interference with enforcement efforts. The district court issued a temporary restraining order blocking both federalization and deployment; after the Seventh Circuit partially stayed that order, the Government sought a stay from the Supreme Court. The Court denied the stay application. It held that the statutory phrase “regular forces” most likely refers to the regular U.S. military rather than civilian law-enforcement officers, so the President may invoke §12406(3) only when he is unable to execute federal law with forces that may lawfully do so under the Posse Comitatus Act. Because the Government relied on inherent Article II authority to protect federal property—an action it simultaneously maintained does not constitute “executing the laws” under the Posse Comitatus Act—the Court concluded the Government had not shown a likelihood of success on the statutory argument at this preliminary stage.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by the League of United Latin American Citizens and others to Texas’s newly enacted congressional district map, which they alleged was drawn predominantly on racial grounds in violation of the Constitution. A divided three-judge federal district court agreed, found that the legislature’s motive was racial rather than partisan, and enjoined use of the map for the 2026 elections. The Supreme Court granted Texas’s application for a stay of that injunction pending appeal. The Court concluded that Texas was likely to prevail on the merits because the district court had failed to apply the presumption of legislative good faith and had not drawn an adverse inference from the challengers’ failure to produce an alternative map that achieved the state’s stated partisan objectives equally well. The Court also found that the equities and public interest favored a stay, citing the principle against altering election rules on the eve of an election.

electionscivil rights

The case concerned a 2019 district court injunction ordering New Orleans to build a new jail facility for inmates with mental health needs, which the local sheriff later sought to terminate under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, with Justice Gorsuch noting he would have granted review. In dissent, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, argued that the Court should have taken the case because the PLRA expressly bars courts from ordering prison construction, making the injunction unlawful from the outset and subject to immediate termination. He further contended that even if the order had been valid initially, the PLRA requires termination after two years unless the party defending the injunction proves it remains narrowly necessary to fix an ongoing violation, and that the lower courts (including the Fifth Circuit) improperly placed the burden on the sheriff seeking termination rather than on the injunction's defenders, contrary to circuit precedent. The dissent highlighted a circuit split on the burden allocation and stated that the Fifth Circuit's approach left New Orleans obligated to fund the project.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved parents suing the Poudre School District over alleged policies that encouraged or assisted students with gender transitions without notifying or obtaining consent from parents, claiming this violated their fundamental constitutional rights. The Tenth Circuit ruled against the parents, and the Supreme Court denied their petition for certiorari. Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, concurred in the denial because the petitioners had not challenged the specific ground on which the lower court ruled. Alito noted that the case raised a significant and recurring constitutional issue about parental rights in the context of school gender policies affecting thousands of districts nationwide, though he agreed certiorari was not warranted here.

civil rightsfamily law

The case concerned Montana’s Parental Consent for Abortion Act, which generally requires physicians to obtain parental consent before performing an abortion on a minor. Planned Parenthood sued in state court to block the law, arguing that it violated the Montana Constitution. The Montana Supreme Court struck down the parental-consent requirement, and the state petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, asking whether a parent’s federal constitutional right to direct a child’s care includes the right to know about and participate in decisions involving a minor’s abortion. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, explained that denial was appropriate because the case had been litigated below without squarely presenting or deciding the federal constitutional issue, making it a poor vehicle for resolving the question presented.

abortionfamily lawcivil rights

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, parents from diverse religious backgrounds sued the Montgomery County Board of Education after it introduced LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks into the K-5 curriculum and rescinded an earlier policy allowing parents to opt their children out of related instruction, claiming the change burdened their religious exercise. The Supreme Court held that the parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction allowing opt-outs while the case proceeds. The Court reasoned that parents have a long-recognized constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, and government policies that substantially interfere with that right—such as compulsory exposure to materials at odds with parents’ sincere beliefs without notice or accommodation—violate the Free Exercise Clause, as established in precedents like Wisconsin v. Yoder.

religious libertyfamily lawcivil rights