Commentary

Home > Commentary

Posted 31 Aug 2026 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Background The Constitution assigns primary responsibility for federal elections to the States, subject only to preemption by Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1; U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, 4.  States and local governments administer virtually all aspects of elections in accordance with the Constitution and federal laws passed by Congress, including registering voters and maintaining voter rolls, maintaining lists of voters who opt in or out of mail-in voting, training election officials, issuing and processing...

Posted 30 Jun 2026 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s Executive Order purporting to end birthright citizenship.  In doing so, the majority relied on the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, the unbroken history of English common law through Reconstruction that recognized birthright citizenship, and existing Supreme Court precedent.  In terms of the importance of today’s decision, as Chief Justice Roberts explained in writing for the majority: “Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights— to...

Posted 29 Jun 2026 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in Chatrie v. United States, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it reviews location data a user provided to their cell phone company.  The Court rejected the government’s arguments that law enforcement’s review of the data was not a search because: A) it only reviewed a short time-period of the location data (2 hours); and /or B) the location data is voluntarily shared with the cellphone providers (i.e., the third party doctrine).  The...

Posted 25 Jun 2026 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court held that statutes like the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) that are enacted pursuant to Congress’ Spending Clause power can “bind only those who voluntarily and knowingly undertake obligations by agreement with the federal government.”  Because employees of a state prison in this case had not agreed to the conditions set forth in RLUIPA, (only the state had agreed to be sued in accepting funding), the prisoner in this case...

Posted 24 Jun 2026 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Supreme Court Rules for Isabella County in Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95 / win for local government tax foreclosure / auction sale processes nationwide.    In a major win for local governments nationwide, the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Alito that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not require the government to use fair market value as a baseline when it sells a foreclosed property at a tax auction and returns only the surplus proceeds...

Posted 23 Jun 2026 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

On June18th, the Supreme Court held that the federal government’s indictment of Mr. Hemani under §922(g)(3), which bars “unlawful users of” a “controlled substance” from possessing a firearm, violated the Second Amendment. The majority called its ruling “narrow,” and noted that it was not addressing the constitutionality of larger questions like whether laws banning addicts or those that are presently intoxicated from possessing firearms. 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3) provides that anyone who is an “unlawful user of” or “addicted to”...

Posted 30 Apr 2026 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Yesterday in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court significantly modified the test courts must use to determine if a claim under §2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) for race-based vote dilution may proceed.  The Court’s new test reframes the focus to discriminatory intent, separate and apart from any intent to gain a partisan advantage, rather than the prior focus on discriminatory results/impacts. The majority indicated it was not “abandoning” the test to determine if a legislature has violated §2 of...

Posted 24 Mar 2026 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Yesterday, in a 6-3 per curiam (unauthored) opinion, the Supreme Court in Zorn v. Linton summarily reversed the Second Circuit’s denial of qualified immunity for a police officer who was alleged to have engaged in excessive force based on his use of a rear wristlock on a non-violent protestor. This case involves a group of about 200 protestors who staged a sit-in during the January 2015 inauguration of then-Governor Peter Shumlin.  When the capitol closed to the public for the night,...

Posted 20 Mar 2026 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

The Supreme Court held today in Olivier v. City of Brandon that Heck v. Humphrey does not bar a §1983 suit seeking purely prospective relief.  This was the case involving the street preacher who had been convicted of violating the City’s ordinance restricting expressive activity near the public amphitheater (the restriction applied in a content neutral manner).  Olivier wanted to return to the venue to continue to preach after his conviction, but without the threat of criminal punishment so he...

Posted 25 Feb 2026 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

In a fractured 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the President does not have the power to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).  Six Justices agreed that the statute’s text does not authorize the President’s tariffs, but only three (the Chief Justice and Justices Gorsuch and Barrett) would have also concluded that the major questions doctrine would also invalidate the tariffs. IEEPA was enacted in 1977 and provides the President with...