June 2026 was the Supreme Court's end-of-term collision month.
Across twenty-eight decisions, the Court moved through birthright citizenship, presidential removal power, Federal Reserve independence, transgender athletes, campaign finance, geofence warrants, absentee ballots, asylum processing, Temporary Protected Status, gun rights, tax foreclosures, patent law, securities enforcement, habeas review, and criminal venue.
The pattern was not simple. The Court expanded presidential control over the Federal Trade Commission, but protected the Federal Reserve from immediate political removal. It rejected President Trump's birthright-citizenship order, but strengthened the government's hand in several immigration cases. It protected geofence-location privacy, but limited relief in habeas cases. It expanded Second Amendment protections in two different contexts, while also giving government agencies room to use administrative processes where final liability still requires court action.
June's deeper story is institutional power. The Court kept asking who gets to decide: the President, Congress, courts, agencies, states, voters, prosecutors, or regulated industries.
Table of Contents
1) Trump v. Barbara
No. 25-365. June 30, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
Opinion:
The case involved President Trump's executive order attempting to deny birthright citizenship to certain children born on U.S. soil. The Court rejected that position, holding that the Citizenship Clause follows the traditional rule of birthright citizenship for persons born in the United States and subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Vote Breakdown:
Bottom-line judgment affirmed with six Justices supporting the result. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the main opinion, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson. Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson, with Kavanaugh concurring in the judgment.
Who dissented:
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch.
What it means for the public:
Birthright citizenship remains constitutionally protected for children born in the United States, even when their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present.
Who benefits:
U.S.-born children, immigrant families, civil-rights challengers, and states relying on settled citizenship rules.
Who gets harmed:
The executive branch's attempt to narrow birthright citizenship through unilateral presidential action.
Who stays central:
The Fourteenth Amendment, because the Court treated citizenship as a constitutional rule that cannot be rewritten by executive order.
Official Slip Opinion:
Trump v. Barbara
2) West Virginia v. B. P. J.
No. 24-43. June 30, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow schools to maintain women's and girls' sports teams based on biological sex.
Opinion:
The case involved West Virginia and Idaho laws limiting female sports participation to biological females. The Court ruled that schools may define women's and girls' teams by biological sex and that the challenged laws satisfied constitutional review.
Vote Breakdown:
6–3 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented:
Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, with separate opinions from Sotomayor and Jackson.
What it means for the public:
States and schools have stronger legal footing to restrict transgender girls from participating on girls' and women's sports teams.
Who benefits:
States defending sex-based sports eligibility laws and school systems using biological-sex classifications.
Who gets harmed:
Transgender student-athletes challenging exclusion from girls' and women's teams.
Who stays central:
State legislatures and school athletic regulators.
Official Slip Opinion:
West Virginia v. B. P. J.
3) National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission
No. 24-621. June 30, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that federal limits on political-party coordinated expenditures violate the First Amendment.
Opinion:
The Court overruled the remaining force of Colorado II and concluded that limits on coordinated spending by political parties are not sufficiently justified by anti-corruption or anti-circumvention interests.
Vote Breakdown:
6–3 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented:
Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
What it means for the public:
Political parties can spend more in coordination with candidates, further loosening campaign-finance restrictions around party spending.
Who benefits:
National party committees, candidates with strong party support, and major political fundraising operations.
Who gets harmed:
Campaign-finance regulators and anti-corruption advocates who supported coordinated-spending limits.
Who stays central:
The First Amendment, as the Court continues treating campaign spending as protected political speech.
Official Slip Opinion:
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission
4) Watson v. Republican National Committee
No. 24-1260. June 29, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later.
Opinion:
The Court rejected the argument that federal law requires absentee ballots to be received by Election Day. It treated the federal statutes as setting the election day, not as imposing a universal ballot-receipt deadline.
Vote Breakdown:
5–4 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Jackson.
Who dissented:
Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, with Kavanaugh joining most of the dissent.
What it means for the public:
States retain room to count timely mailed absentee ballots that arrive shortly after Election Day.
Who benefits:
Absentee voters, election officials in states with postmark-based rules, and states preserving mail-ballot grace periods.
Who gets harmed:
Groups seeking a strict Election Day receipt rule for federal ballots.
Who stays central:
State election administrators, because the Court left room for state ballot-counting rules unless Congress clearly says otherwise.
Official Slip Opinion:
Watson v. Republican National Committee
5) Chatrie v. United States
No. 25-112. June 29, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they obtain geofence location data from Google.
Opinion:
The Court ruled that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell-phone location data swept into a geofence warrant. It sent the case back for lower courts to decide whether the warrant satisfied probable-cause and particularity requirements.
Vote Breakdown:
Fragmented decision. Kagan wrote for five Justices on the core opinion. Gorsuch concurred in the judgment. Alito and Barrett dissented, with Thomas joining part of Alito's dissent.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson, with Gorsuch concurring in the judgment.
Who dissented:
Alito and Barrett, with Thomas joining part of Alito's dissent.
What it means for the public:
Geofence warrants face constitutional scrutiny because broad location-data sweeps are treated as searches.
Who benefits:
Cell-phone users, privacy advocates, and criminal defendants challenging location-data searches.
Who gets harmed:
Law enforcement agencies relying on broad geofence warrants without tighter probable-cause limits.
Who stays central:
The Fourth Amendment in the digital age.
Official Slip Opinion:
Chatrie v. United States
6) Trump v. Cook
No. 25A312. June 29, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court denied the government's request to stay an injunction blocking President Trump's attempted removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
Opinion:
The Court held that Cook was entitled to process before removal and declined to unsettle the Federal Reserve's historically independent structure while litigation continued.
Vote Breakdown:
5–4 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson.
Who dissented:
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett.
What it means for the public:
The Federal Reserve remains treated differently from ordinary executive agencies, at least for now.
Who benefits:
Federal Reserve independence and officials protected by statutory for-cause removal provisions.
Who gets harmed:
The President's attempt to immediately remove a Federal Reserve governor without first providing process.
Who stays central:
The Federal Reserve's special historical status.
Official Slip Opinion:
Trump v. Cook
7) Trump v. Slaughter
No. 25-332. June 29, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the Federal Trade Commission's for-cause removal protection is unconstitutional.
Opinion:
The Court ruled that FTC commissioners exercise executive power and must be removable by the President at will. The decision sharply limited the continued force of Humphrey's Executor in modern administrative government.
Vote Breakdown:
6–3 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented:
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson.
What it means for the public:
The President gains stronger control over independent regulatory agencies that exercise executive power.
Who benefits:
The executive branch and presidents seeking direct control over agency leadership.
Who gets harmed:
Independent-agency insulation and commissioners relying on for-cause removal protections.
Who stays central:
Article II presidential removal power.
Official Slip Opinion:
Trump v. Slaughter
8) Monsanto v. Durnell
No. 24-1068. June 25, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that FIFRA preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim requiring Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup's label.
Opinion:
Because the EPA had approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning, the Court held that state tort law could not impose an additional labeling requirement.
Vote Breakdown:
7–2 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented:
Jackson, joined by Gorsuch.
What it means for the public:
Federal pesticide-label approval can block state lawsuits seeking warnings that EPA did not require.
Who benefits:
Pesticide manufacturers and companies regulated under federal labeling schemes.
Who gets harmed:
Plaintiffs bringing state-law failure-to-warn claims over federally approved pesticide labels.
Who stays central:
EPA labeling decisions.
Official Slip Opinion:
Monsanto v. Durnell
9) Mullin v. Doe
No. 25-1083. June 25, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional challenges to Temporary Protected Status termination decisions.
Opinion:
The Court also held that the equal-protection challenge to Haiti's TPS termination was unlikely to succeed, allowing the government's TPS terminations to move forward.
Vote Breakdown:
6–3 judgment, with a partially divided majority opinion.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented:
Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
What it means for the public:
Immigrants challenging TPS terminations face narrower access to federal court, especially for statutory and administrative-law claims.
Who benefits:
The Department of Homeland Security and administrations seeking to end TPS designations.
Who gets harmed:
TPS holders from affected countries and immigrant-rights groups challenging terminations.
Who stays central:
Congress's judicial-review limits inside immigration law.
Official Slip Opinion:
Mullin v. Doe
10) Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
No. 25-5. June 25, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that an alien standing in Mexico has not "arrived in the United States" for purposes of asylum and inspection provisions.
Opinion:
The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's view that asylum seekers blocked at the border had already arrived for statutory purposes. The Court held that arrival requires crossing into the United States.
Vote Breakdown:
6–3 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented:
Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson.
What it means for the public:
The government has more authority to control asylum processing at ports of entry before a person physically enters the United States.
Who benefits:
Border officials and administrations using metering or similar border-management policies.
Who gets harmed:
Asylum seekers waiting outside U.S. territory and advocacy groups challenging border-access limits.
Who stays central:
The statutory phrase "arrives in the United States."
Official Slip Opinion:
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
11) Wolford v. Lopez
No. 24-1046. June 25, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that Hawaii's default rule barring licensed concealed carry on private property open to the public without express consent violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
Opinion:
The Court ruled that Hawaii could not flip the default rule and treat public-facing private property as a broad gun-free zone unless the owner affirmatively allowed carry.
Vote Breakdown:
6–3 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented:
Kagan; Jackson, joined by Sotomayor.
What it means for the public:
States face tighter constitutional limits when trying to restrict licensed carry across broad categories of publicly accessible private property.
Who benefits:
Licensed concealed-carry permit holders and gun-rights challengers.
Who gets harmed:
States seeking expansive post-Bruen sensitive-place or default no-carry rules.
Who stays central:
The Second Amendment history-and-tradition test.
Official Slip Opinion:
Wolford v. Lopez
12) Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe
No. 24-856. June 23, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute.
Opinion:
The Court rejected ATS aiding-and-abetting claims against Cisco over surveillance technology allegedly used by China to persecute religious dissidents. The Court also narrowed the Torture Victim Protection Act theory against executives.
Vote Breakdown:
6–3 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented or partly dissented:
Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson.
What it means for the public:
Human-rights plaintiffs face a much narrower path when trying to sue corporations in U.S. courts for overseas conduct under the ATS.
Who benefits:
Corporations and executives facing international human-rights claims in U.S. federal court.
Who gets harmed:
Foreign plaintiffs seeking civil accountability for alleged overseas abuses.
Who stays central:
Congress, because the Court said new causes of action should come from lawmakers, not judges.
Official Slip Opinion:
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe
13) Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S. A. (Cuba)
No. 24-699. June 23, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the Helms-Burton Act abrogates sovereign immunity for Cuban agencies and instrumentalities sued under the Act.
Opinion:
The Court allowed Exxon's suit over Cuban-confiscated property to proceed without requiring Exxon to separately satisfy one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's exceptions.
Vote Breakdown:
6–3 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented:
Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
What it means for the public:
U.S. claimants suing Cuban government entities over confiscated property gain a stronger federal path to court.
Who benefits:
U.S. nationals and companies with Helms-Burton claims.
Who gets harmed:
Cuban state-owned entities invoking sovereign immunity.
Who stays central:
Congress's Helms-Burton remedy.
Official Slip Opinion:
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S. A. (Cuba)
14) Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety
No. 23-1197. June 23, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that individuals may not be personally liable for damages under RLUIPA unless they knowingly and voluntarily accepted liability under the Spending Clause statute.
Opinion:
The case involved a Rastafarian prisoner whose head was forcibly shaved despite his religious objection. The Court held that RLUIPA did not allow individual-capacity damages against the officials.
Vote Breakdown:
6–3 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented:
Jackson, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
What it means for the public:
Prisoners may have fewer damages remedies against individual officials for RLUIPA violations.
Who benefits:
State officials facing individual-capacity damages claims under Spending Clause statutes.
Who gets harmed:
Religious-liberty plaintiffs seeking money damages from individual officials.
Who stays central:
Congress, because it can create clearer damages remedies if it chooses.
Official Slip Opinion:
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety
15) Pung v. Isabella County
No. 25-95. June 23, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that just compensation after a tax foreclosure sale is measured by surplus auction proceeds, not hypothetical fair market value, when the sale was fairly conducted.
Opinion:
The Court also rejected the Excessive Fines Clause challenge. The property owner was entitled to surplus proceeds, but not the full assessed market value of the home.
Vote Breakdown:
Unanimous judgment, with separate concurrences.
Who voted yes:
All Justices in the judgment.
What it means for the public:
Owners whose property is sold for unpaid taxes can recover surplus proceeds, but not necessarily the property's market value.
Who benefits:
Counties and tax authorities using foreclosure-sale systems.
Who gets harmed:
Property owners seeking broader compensation after tax sales.
Who stays central:
The Takings Clause and the history of tax-sale remedies.
Official Slip Opinion:
Pung v. Isabella County
16) Blanche v. Lau
No. 25-429. June 23, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the INA does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that person as an applicant for admission.
Opinion:
The Court ruled that the Second Circuit imposed an extra evidentiary burden not found in the immigration statute.
Vote Breakdown:
6–3 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented:
Jackson, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
What it means for the public:
Lawful permanent residents returning to the United States may face inadmissibility proceedings without the border officer first satisfying the heightened standard adopted by the Second Circuit.
Who benefits:
Immigration officials and the federal government.
Who gets harmed:
Lawful permanent residents contesting border-admission treatment after criminal convictions.
Who stays central:
The INA's two-step structure for admission and removability.
Official Slip Opinion:
Blanche v. Lau
17) McCarthy v. Hernandez
No. 25-748. June 22, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's habeas ruling for Pedro Hernandez, holding that no clearly established federal law required the jury instruction at issue.
Opinion:
The Court said AEDPA did not allow federal habeas relief based on the Second Circuit's broader concerns about the reliability of Hernandez's confessions.
Vote Breakdown:
Per curiam decision.
Who voted yes:
The majority reversed.
Who would have denied review:
Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson.
What it means for the public:
Federal habeas courts remain tightly limited to clearly established Supreme Court precedent.
Who benefits:
States defending convictions under AEDPA.
Who gets harmed:
Prisoners seeking habeas relief based on lower-court extensions of constitutional doctrine.
Who stays central:
AEDPA deference.
Official Slip Opinion:
McCarthy v. Hernandez
18) United States v. Hemani
No. 24-1234. June 18, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the government's prosecution of Ali Hemani under §922(g)(3), the federal unlawful-drug-user gun ban, was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
Opinion:
The Court ruled that the government's historical analogues did not justify automatically disarming a person based only on regular marijuana use, at least on the facts presented.
Vote Breakdown:
Unanimous judgment, with a seven-Justice majority opinion and separate concurrences.
Who voted yes:
All Justices agreed with the judgment. Gorsuch wrote the main opinion joined by Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Alito concurred in the judgment, joined by Kagan.
What it means for the public:
The government cannot automatically disarm every unlawful drug user without a historically grounded justification that matches the burden imposed.
Who benefits:
Second Amendment challengers and defendants prosecuted under broad drug-user firearm bans.
Who gets harmed:
Federal prosecutors relying on categorical §922(g)(3) charges without individualized dangerousness.
Who stays central:
Bruen-style historical analysis.
Official Slip Opinion:
United States v. Hemani
19) Hunter v. United States
No. 24-1063. June 18, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that a sentencing appeal waiver is unenforceable when enforcing it would cause a miscarriage of justice.
Opinion:
The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit's narrow rule limiting exceptions to ineffective assistance and sentences above the statutory maximum.
Vote Breakdown:
8–1 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson.
Who dissented:
Thomas.
What it means for the public:
Defendants who sign appeal waivers may still challenge sentences in extraordinary cases where enforcing the waiver would be unjust.
Who benefits:
Criminal defendants facing extreme sentencing errors despite plea waivers.
Who gets harmed:
The government's ability to enforce appeal waivers mechanically.
Who stays central:
Federal appellate courts applying the miscarriage-of-justice standard.
Official Slip Opinion:
Hunter v. United States
20) T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation
No. 25-197. June 18, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the federal suit at issue and declined to narrow or expand the doctrine.
Opinion:
The Court left Rooker-Feldman where it found it, holding that federal district courts cannot function as appellate reviewers of state-court judgments.
Vote Breakdown:
5–4 decision.
Who voted yes:
Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Jackson.
Who dissented:
Barrett, joined by Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch.
What it means for the public:
Federal district courts remain closed to plaintiffs effectively seeking review and rejection of state-court judgments.
Who benefits:
State-court judgment finality.
Who gets harmed:
Federal plaintiffs trying to relitigate state-court losses in federal district court.
Who stays central:
The boundary between state appellate review and federal original jurisdiction.
Official Slip Opinion:
T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation
21) Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.
No. 25-6. June 11, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that courts must look at the totality of the circumstances before applying judicial estoppel to a bankruptcy debtor who omitted a legal claim.
Opinion:
The Court rejected a rigid rule treating knowledge of the claim and a hypothetical motive to conceal as enough to bar the lawsuit.
Vote Breakdown:
Unanimous decision.
Who voted yes:
All Justices.
What it means for the public:
Debtors who accidentally omit claims in bankruptcy may still be able to pursue those claims if the circumstances show mistake rather than manipulation.
Who benefits:
Bankruptcy debtors and injury plaintiffs facing judicial-estoppel defenses.
Who gets harmed:
Defendants seeking automatic dismissal based on omitted bankruptcy disclosures.
Who stays central:
Trial courts evaluating good faith and context.
Official Slip Opinion:
Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.
22) FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.
No. 24-345. June 11, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act does not create an implied private right of action for rescission.
Opinion:
The Court emphasized that Congress, not courts, decides who may sue to enforce federal law.
Vote Breakdown:
6–3 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Who dissented:
Kagan; Jackson, joined by Sotomayor and in part by Kagan.
What it means for the public:
Private parties cannot use Section 47(b) as a broad tool to unwind contracts allegedly violating the Investment Company Act.
Who benefits:
Funds and companies resisting implied private enforcement suits.
Who gets harmed:
Investors and counterparties seeking rescission without an express cause of action.
Who stays central:
Congress's choice of enforcement mechanisms.
Official Slip Opinion:
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.
23) Abouammo v. United States
No. 25-5146. June 11, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that a defendant charged with falsifying a document under §1519 must be tried where the falsification occurred.
Opinion:
The Court rejected venue in the district where the federal investigation was located when no conduct constituting the offense occurred there.
Vote Breakdown:
Unanimous decision.
Who voted yes:
All Justices.
What it means for the public:
The government must charge document-falsification offenses in the district where the defendant actually falsified the document.
Who benefits:
Criminal defendants asserting constitutional venue rights.
Who gets harmed:
Prosecutors seeking broader venue based on where an investigation is centered.
Who stays central:
Article III and Sixth Amendment venue protections.
Official Slip Opinion:
Abouammo v. United States
24) Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
No. 24-889. June 4, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that Amarin failed to state a plausible active-inducement patent claim against Hikma.
Opinion:
The Court ruled that vague statements and speculation about how doctors might interpret a generic-drug label were not enough to plead inducement.
Vote Breakdown:
Unanimous decision.
Who voted yes:
All Justices.
What it means for the public:
Generic-drug companies gain protection against thin inducement claims based on ambiguous labeling or marketing statements.
Who benefits:
Generic pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Who gets harmed:
Brand-name drug companies trying to use inducement theories to block generic competition.
Who stays central:
Pleading standards in patent litigation.
Official Slip Opinion:
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
25) Sripetch v. SEC
No. 25-466. June 4, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the SEC may seek disgorgement without proving investors suffered pecuniary loss, so long as the remedy is for the benefit of investors and respects equitable limits.
Opinion:
The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit and rejected the argument that financial loss is always required before disgorgement is available.
Vote Breakdown:
Unanimous decision.
Who voted yes:
All Justices.
What it means for the public:
The SEC retains a strong tool to recover ill-gotten gains in securities-enforcement cases.
Who benefits:
The SEC and defrauded investors.
Who gets harmed:
Securities-law violators resisting disgorgement where investor loss is difficult to quantify.
Who stays central:
Equitable limits on disgorgement after Liu.
Official Slip Opinion:
Sripetch v. SEC
26) FCC v. AT&T
No. 25-406. June 4, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that FCC forfeiture orders do not violate the Seventh Amendment because they do not finally impose liability without a jury.
Opinion:
The Court ruled that before the government can collect a penalty, it must prove the case in a trial de novo, where the regulated party has access to a jury.
Vote Breakdown:
8–1 decision.
Who voted yes:
Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson.
Who dissented:
Thomas.
What it means for the public:
Agencies may continue using administrative forfeiture processes when final collection still requires court proceedings with jury protections.
Who benefits:
The FCC and agencies using similar enforcement structures.
Who gets harmed:
Companies arguing that administrative penalty orders themselves violate jury-trial rights.
Who stays central:
The line between administrative process and binding legal liability.
Official Slip Opinion:
FCC v. AT&T
27) Allen v. Milligan
No. 25A1314. June 2, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court stayed lower-court injunctions that prevented Alabama from using its 2023 congressional map.
Opinion:
The order followed the Court's April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais and allowed Alabama's challenged map to remain in use while further review continued.
Vote Breakdown:
Per curiam order.
Who dissented:
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson.
What it means for the public:
Alabama could proceed under the disputed congressional map while litigation continued.
Who benefits:
Alabama officials defending the state's map.
Who gets harmed:
Voting-rights plaintiffs challenging the map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Who stays central:
The Court's revised approach to Voting Rights Act vote-dilution claims after Callais.
Official Slip Opinion:
Allen v. Milligan
28) Whitton v. Dixon
No. 25-580. June 1, 2026
Decision:
The Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's judgment in a Florida death-penalty habeas case.
Opinion:
The Court held that the Eleventh Circuit should not have considered post-trial DNA evidence when evaluating whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that trial testimony was immaterial to the jury's verdict.
Vote Breakdown:
Per curiam decision.
Who dissented:
Thomas, joined by Alito except as to one part.
What it means for the public:
Federal habeas courts must evaluate state-court reasonableness based on the evidence properly before the state court and the jury, not later-developed evidence.
Who benefits:
Capital defendants challenging how federal courts evaluated their habeas claims.
Who gets harmed:
States defending habeas rulings that relied on post-trial evidence.
Who stays central:
AEDPA and the evidentiary boundaries of federal habeas review.
Official Slip Opinion:
Whitton v. Dixon
What June Actually Changed
June 2026 was not just a busy Supreme Court month. It was a power-map month.
The Court protected birthright citizenship from unilateral executive revision. It gave the President more control over the FTC, but refused to let the same removal theory quickly destabilize the Federal Reserve. It made campaign-finance rules more speech-protective for political parties. It preserved postmarked absentee-ballot grace periods. It gave privacy advocates a major win on geofence warrants. It expanded Second Amendment protections for both public carry and firearm possession by some drug users.
At the same time, the Court narrowed several routes into court. Immigration plaintiffs lost ground in TPS and asylum-processing cases. Human-rights plaintiffs lost ground under the Alien Tort Statute. Prisoner religious-liberty plaintiffs lost a damages route under RLUIPA. Habeas petitioners continued to face strict AEDPA limits.
The simplest way to read June is this: the Court did not choose one side of power. It chose which institutions it trusted with power.
Congress stays central when the question is citizenship text, statutory causes of action, or retroactivity. The President gains power over executive agencies. The Federal Reserve remains a special case. States keep room over election administration but lose room when gun regulations collide with the Second Amendment. Courts keep policing digital searches, but they are less willing to create new remedies or new causes of action.
June's Court protected some doors, locked others, and reminded everyone that in modern constitutional law, the hardest fight is often not over the right itself.
It is over who gets to enforce it.
