Neil Gorsuch

The Supreme Court ruled in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections that federal spending programs should be treated as contracts, limiting the ability to sue individual government officials under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLIUPA). The decision, 6-3 along ideological lines, held that officials cannot be sued unless they explicitly consent, effectively weakening enforcement of RLIUPA against violations.

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 Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump's executive order to end it. Lawmakers split along party lines, with Republicans criticizing the ruling and some Democrats supporting it. The 6-3 decision included dissents from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito, who argued the 14th Amendment does not apply to children of unlawful immigrants.

The Supreme Court ruled that appeal waivers in plea bargains are unenforceable if they cause a miscarriage of justice and determined that geofence warrants analyzing cellphone location data qualify as a Fourth Amendment 'search'. Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed with both outcomes but emphasized broader concerns about coercive plea bargaining and problematic Fourth Amendment precedents.

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 President Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary visitors, ruling it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. The 6-3 decision reaffirmed that the 14th Amendment automatically grants citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., with Chief Justice John Roberts emphasizing the Framers’ intent. Three conservative justices and President Trump disputed the ruling, arguing the Amendment was intended only for freed black slaves.

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s Executive Order banning birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors, ruling it unconstitutional. The 6-3 decision reaffirmed that birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. Three conservative justices dissented, arguing the 14th Amendment only applied to freed black slaves.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump’s Executive Order banning birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary visitors was unconstitutional, reaffirming that birthright citizenship is protected by the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the 14th Amendment applied only to freed black slaves.

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 has agreed to review the constitutionality of bans on semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15, taking up cases from Illinois and Connecticut. The decision follows recent rulings on gun rights and includes challenges to local laws that prohibit possession of such firearms, with justices acknowledging prior divisions on the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to redefine the constitutional right. A majority of justices, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, ruled the order violated the 14th Amendment. Six justices agreed with the majority, while three dissented, with some arguing Congress could legislate exceptions to birthright citizenship.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to redefine the constitutional right. A majority of justices, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, ruled the order violated the 14th Amendment, while conservative justices dissented. Trump urged Congress to codify his policy, but the decision emphasized that any change to birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order that aimed to redefine the constitutional right. A majority of justices found the order violated the 14th Amendment, while three conservative justices dissented. Trump attended the oral arguments, and the decision marks a setback for his immigration agenda.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order to redefine constitutional rights. A majority of justices, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ruled the order violated the 14th Amendment, while three conservative justices dissented. Trump called on Congress to codify his proposal into law.

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.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor received $4,333 in Bad Bunny concert tickets from Rimas Entertainment during a 2025 trip to Puerto Rico, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received a $2,500 painting for her chambers. Financial disclosures revealed teaching earnings, book royalties, and travel details for multiple justices in 2025.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor received $4,333 in concert tickets for a Puerto Rico event last August, while other justices disclosed royalties from books and teaching income. Financial disclosure forms revealed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson earned $1.81 million in book advances and Justice Amy Coney Barrett reported over $849,000 in royalties.

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.

Supreme Court justices disclosed over $2 million in 2025 book deal earnings, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson receiving a $1.2 million advance. Gifts included concert tickets and a painting commission, while advocates criticized the ethical implications of justices earning millions from books.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor attended a Puerto Rico concert gifted by Rimas Entertainment, while justices reported book royalties, teaching income, and travel. Financial disclosures revealed earnings from books, speaking engagements, and courses, with Justice Samuel Alito requesting an extension for his report.

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.

250 years after the Declaration of Independence, Margaret Hoover examines the institutions and sacrifices that have sustained its ideals through conversations with Justice Neil Gorsuch, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

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 refused to revive Alan Dershowitz's $300 million defamation lawsuit against CNN over coverage of his remarks during President Donald Trump's 2020 impeachment. Lower courts dismissed the case, finding Dershowitz failed to prove CNN acted with 'actual malice' under the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan standard. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas dissented, urging a reevaluation of defamation standards for public figures.

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 Supreme Court blocked a lawsuit alleging Roundup weed killer causes cancer, ruling 7-2 that federal law prevents state failure-to-warn claims against Monsanto. The decision overturned a $1.25 million award to plaintiff John Durnell, while a $7.25 billion class-action settlement remains pending. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the ruling was based on a non-existent labeling requirement.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for Roundup's labeling, stating federal law preempts such claims. The decision overturned a $1.25 million award to a man who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion and a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that state courts cannot hold Monsanto liable for labeling shortcomings in pesticides like Roundup, as federal law preempts such claims. The decision overturned a $1.25 million verdict awarded to John Durnell, who claimed Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that federal law preempts state liability claims against Monsanto over Roundup's labeling, overturning a $1.25 million verdict awarded to a Missouri man who claimed the herbicide caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The decision, with Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion and Justice Jackson's dissent, held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulates pesticide labels, preventing states from imposing additional requirements.

The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the former Monsanto company, blocking thousands of state lawsuits over Roundup's label warnings. The 7-2 decision, led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, centers on claims that Roundup's ingredient causes cancer, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

The court released five rulings, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned abortion rights, and decisions in cases involving the Alien Tort Statute, Helms-Burton Act, Religious Land Use Act, tax sales compensation, and immigration law. Opinions were split in several cases, with majority and dissenting opinions authored by various justices.

The Supreme Court ruled that a Rastafarian man cannot sue Louisiana prison officials for forcibly shaving his dreadlocks, citing federal law does not permit claims against individual officers. The 6-3 decision emphasized Congress lacks authority to impose liability directly on prison staff, while dissenting justices warned prisoners may lack remedies for religious liberty violations.

The Supreme Court ruled that a Rastafarian man cannot seek damages from Louisiana prison officials who shaved his dreadlocks, citing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The decision, split along ideological lines, held that individual officers could not be liable for violating religious rights, as the prison—not the officials—accepted federal funds required to uphold RLUIPA protections.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a Louisiana man cannot sue prison officials for shaving his head despite presenting a court ruling allowing him to keep his hair for religious reasons as a Rastafarian. The majority held that a federal law protecting prisoners' religious rights does not authorize lawsuits for monetary damages under the Constitution’s spending clause. A dissent argued the ruling leaves prisoners without remedies for religious freedom violations.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ali Hemani in United States v. Hemani, finding his prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for firearm possession as an 'unlawful user' of marijuana violated the Second Amendment. The court highlighted the statute's vagueness, as it fails to clearly define 'unlawful user,' creating ambiguity about who is prohibited from firearm possession.

In United States v. Hemani, Justices Gorsuch, Jackson, and Alito agreed the government failed to prove its justification for disarming Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), citing his marijuana use. The case hinges on Second Amendment protections and the requirement for the government to demonstrate a permissible reason tied to the defendant's conduct, as established by precedents like Bruen and Rahimi.