Elena Kagan

Justices Kagan and Barrett will testify before Congress next week regarding the Supreme Court's budget request, including a boost in security funding. President Donald Trump has petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider its rejection of his appeal in a $5 million verdict case. A poll indicates 50% of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court's job handling.

Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett will testify on Capitol Hill next week before the House and Senate Appropriations Committees regarding the Supreme Court's budget request. The court seeks a $14 million security increase for fiscal 2027, with the House proposing a $207 million funding level. Lawmakers aim to focus on operational expenses rather than pending cases.

The Supreme Court concludes its term, with increased ideological division in decisions noted by SCOTUSblog. The article highlights the gradual pace of constitutional law changes and the media's focus on the Court's impact on American citizens.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 50-year-old federal law limiting political party spending in coordination with candidates, expanding First Amendment protections for money in politics. The 6-3 decision benefits Republican candidates by enabling unlimited spending and coordination, potentially increasing TV ad spending in key midterm races like Maine’s Senate election.

The 2025-26 Supreme Court term showed increased ideological division, with 28.8% of decisions split 6-3 along ideological lines, compared to 15.2% the previous term. The final week included deviations from the usual 6-3 pattern, including Trump v. Barbara, where all three liberal justices joined the majority. Other cases like West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Trump v. Slaughter followed predictable ideological splits.

The Supreme Court released three final opinions for the 2025-26 term, including striking down an executive order on birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, upholding Title IX policies on sports teams in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, and ruling against campaign spending restrictions in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. The decisions involved multiple justices with varying concurrences and dissents.

The Supreme Court struck down federal limits on coordinated political party spending in a 6-3 decision, ruling they violate the First Amendment. The ruling, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, removes caps on party expenditures supporting candidates, with critics warning it could increase corruption and supporters calling it a victory for free speech.

The Supreme Court struck down federal campaign finance limits on political parties, ruling they violate the First Amendment. The 6-3 decision removed coordinated spending caps between candidates and parties, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasizing the restrictions as disproportionate. The ruling aligns with Republican leaders' arguments against federal spending limits but faces criticism for potentially increasing corruption risks.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that children born in the U.S. are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment regardless of their parents' immigration status, rejecting an executive order by President Donald Trump. The decision highlighted divisions among justices, including differing views between two Black justices and sharp disagreements over historical interpretations of the Citizenship Clause.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police must obtain a warrant to access stored cellphone location data from companies like Google under the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Chatrie v. United States addressed geofence warrants, which require companies to provide location history for devices in a specific area during a time frame. The court sent the case back to a lower court to determine if the warrant used in the case met Fourth Amendment standards.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police must obtain a warrant under the Fourth Amendment to access stored cellphone location data from companies like Google. The decision in Chatrie v. United States addressed geofence warrants used in a 2019 credit union robbery investigation, with the court stating individuals retain privacy rights in location data even when stored by third-party companies. The case was remanded to determine if the specific warrant met constitutional standards.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald J. Trump exceeded his authority by attempting to end birthright citizenship via executive order, upholding the 14th Amendment. The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, emphasized the constitutional right to citizenship, while dissenting justices argued the ruling expanded citizenship to include children of 'birth tourists.' Immigrant advocates highlighted the decision's importance for protecting children's rights and access to healthcare.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties with candidates, citing First Amendment violations. The decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission overturned the 2001 Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee ruling. Justices Kavanaugh (majority) and Kagan (dissent) highlighted opposing views on free speech and democratic integrity.

The Supreme Court announced its final four cases for the term, including Trump v. Barbara (birthright citizenship) and cases on transgender athletes and campaign finance. On Monday, the court issued rulings in four cases, including decisions on the FTC’s for-cause removal provision, the removal of a Federal Reserve Governor, mail-in ballot deadlines, and cellphone location privacy. Additional cases were added to the 2026-27 term docket.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump could remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter but could not dismiss Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook. The decision overturned a 1935 precedent limiting presidential authority over agency panels, with the majority asserting the FTC must be controlled by the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, emphasizing the importance of agency independence.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that law enforcement requires warrants to access cellphone location history data under the Fourth Amendment. The decision centered on a 2019 Virginia credit union robbery case, where police obtained location data from a third-party tech company. The ruling leaves unresolved when such searches are deemed reasonable, with civil liberties advocates and states debating the implications of geofence warrants.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states can count mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day, rejecting arguments from the Trump administration and Republican states. The decision, in RNC vs. Watson, upheld Mississippi's law allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days, with thirteen states having similar grace periods.

The Supreme Court features an exhibition on the nation's 250th anniversary, highlighting legal arguments for independence. Justices have delivered historical lessons in recent cases, referencing colonial-era laws and Founding Fathers' practices, with examples from cases like Abouammo v. United States and United States v. Hemani.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police need warrants to obtain cellphone location data from third-party tech companies, citing Fourth Amendment protections. The decision, involving a 2019 Virginia credit union robbery case, left unresolved when such searches are considered reasonable under the Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement requires warrants to access cellphone location history data under the Fourth Amendment, citing privacy rights. The 6-3 decision centered on a Virginia bank robbery case, with Justice Elena Kagan writing the majority opinion. The ruling left unresolved questions about the reasonableness of geofence warrants, which allow police to track phones in specific geographic areas.

The Supreme Court ruled that police cannot freely access cellphone location history, stating constitutional privacy protections apply to such data. The decision involved Okello Chatrie, a bank robber whose identity was uncovered via a geofence warrant, with Justice Elena Kagan emphasizing that users retain privacy expectations even when sharing location data with Google. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing Chatrie had no privacy claim for information voluntarily given to Google.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Virginia detectives violated the Fourth Amendment by using a geofence warrant to collect cellphone location data from Google to solve a 2019 bank robbery. The majority held that accessing Google's location database constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, citing prior precedent in Carpenter v. United States. The case involved Okello Chatrie, whose data was swept up in the search, and highlighted concerns about government access to sensitive location information.

The Supreme Court ruled that constitutional privacy protections extend to cellphone users' location history, citing a case where a geofence warrant linked a bank robber to a crime. The 6-3 decision, led by Justice Elena Kagan, emphasized that opting into Google’s location history does not relinquish privacy rights, while Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the defendant voluntarily shared data with Google. The case involves Okello Chatrie, who was identified through location data after a 2019 bank robbery in Virginia.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that constitutional privacy protections apply to cellphone location data, using the case of bank robber Okello Chatrie, whose location was tracked via a geofence warrant. Justice Elena Kagan emphasized users retain privacy expectations even when sharing location data with services like Google, while Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing no privacy expectation exists for voluntarily shared data.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police need warrants to access cellphone location history data under the Fourth Amendment. The 6-3 decision centered on a 2019 Virginia credit union robbery case, with Justice Elena Kagan writing that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cellphone location records. The ruling leaves unresolved questions about when such searches are considered reasonable.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that collecting phone location data from a geographic area via geofence warrants constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, marking a significant decision for tech privacy. The ruling in Chatrie v. The United States aligns with 2018's Carpenter decision, emphasizing privacy protections for cell-site location data even when shared with third-party tech companies like Google.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that law enforcement must obtain warrants to access cellphone location data from third-party companies under the Fourth Amendment. The decision centered on a 2019 Virginia credit union robbery case, where police used geofence warrants to identify suspects, but the Court left unresolved when such searches are considered reasonable.

The US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump can fire leaders of independent agencies, overturning 90 years of precedent. The decision in Trump v Slaughter was 6-3, with dissents from Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan. The case involved Trump's 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter.

The US Supreme Court ruled that geofence warrants requiring smartphone location data must include constitutional privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion, supporting critics who argue such warrants constitute an unconstitutional dragnet.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Mississippi can count absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later, overturning a federal appeals court decision. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that federal election-day statutes do not require ballots to be received by Election Day. The dissent, led by Justice Samuel Alito, opposed the decision, which follows a challenge to Mississippi’s voting laws by President Donald Trump’s administration.

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado ruled that U.S. immigration officers can block asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexican border by metering access to ports of entry, effectively denying them the right to apply for asylum. The policy, implemented in 2016 and expanded in 2017, involved Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers preventing asylum seekers from entering the U.S. until processing capacity allows, leaving many stranded in Mexico. The Court held that asylum protections under U.S. law and international treaties do not apply to individuals physically outside the U.S. at the border threshold.

In Hunter v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that appeal waivers in federal criminal plea bargains are unenforceable if they result in a 'miscarriage of justice.' The case involved Munson Hunter III, who waived his right to appeal but argued that a court-ordered medication condition during supervised release violated his constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court issued rulings in four cases, including decisions on Temporary Protected Status, Hawaii's concealed-carry law, asylum eligibility, and pesticide labeling. The White House described the immigration-related rulings as a 'tremendous win' for the Trump administration. The court also denied a stay of execution for Dusty Ray Spencer, who was later executed in Florida.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Haitian and Syrian nationals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), blocking their ability to seek court delays in revocation and denying asylum rights to migrants turned away at the border. Blue state leaders in New York and Massachusetts condemned the decisions, vowing local resistance and legal support for affected immigrants.

The U.S. Supreme Court ended temporary protected status for over 300,000 Haitian and Syrian immigrants, affecting 40,000 New Yorkers. The 6-3 ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with deportations, rejecting judicial review of federal immigration decisions. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion stated courts cannot review such decisions, while dissenting Justice Elena Kagan argued the ruling was racially discriminatory, citing President Trump's derogatory remarks about Haitians.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration can end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, removing their work permits and deportation protections. The majority rejected claims of racial bias in the decision, while dissenting justices argued the administration's actions relied on racial stereotypes. The ruling impacts ongoing lawsuits and aligns with broader efforts to reduce immigration.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Hawaii’s law banning gun carrying at public-facing businesses without owner permission is unconstitutional, citing inconsistency with historical firearm regulation traditions. The decision in Wolford v. Lopez reinforces the 2022 Bruen ruling, requiring modern gun laws to align with early American practices, and clarifies that businesses can still prohibit firearms if they explicitly notify customers.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration can end Temporary Protected Status for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, removing their work permits and deportation protections. The majority dismissed claims of racial bias in terminating protections, while dissenting justices argued the decision relied on racial stereotypes.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration can terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, removing their work permits and deportation protections. The majority dismissed claims of racial bias in ending TPS, while dissenting justices argued the decision relied on racial stereotypes against Haitians.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Trump administration can terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, removing their work permits and deportation protections. The majority dismissed claims of racial bias in the decision, while dissenting justices argued the policy relied on racial stereotypes. The ruling impacts ongoing lawsuits and aligns with broader efforts to reduce immigration.