In recognition of Juneteenth, this is an abridged edition of SCOTUStoday.
Reminder: If you’d like to attend our July 8 term-in-review event at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center, register your interest here. The event will feature a fireside chat with the ACLU’s Cecillia Wang, who argued the birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court; a live taping of the Advisory Opinions podcast; and a discussion of the historical framework of birthright citizenship from Johns Hopkins professor Martha S. Jones.
At the Court
On Thursday, the court released its opinions in three cases: United States v. Hemani, Hunter v. United States, and T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.
- In Hemani, the court held that the federal government cannot prosecute Ali Hemani for violating a federal law that prohibits knowingly possessing a gun while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. As applied to Hemani, who used marijuana about every other day, that law violates the Second Amendment, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. There were no dissents, but several justices wrote or joined concurring opinions.
- In Hunter, the court held that an agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice – meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. It sent the case of Munson Hunter back to the lower court to be reconsidered under that standard. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter.
- In T.M., by a 5-4 vote, the court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which limits federal district courts’ authority to review state-court judgments, applies to judgments that remain subject to further review in state appellate proceedings, not just final decisions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissent, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch.
After announcing opinions, the justices met in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from Thursday’s conference are expected on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT.
The court has indicated that it will next release opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m. EDT. We will be live blogging that morning beginning at 9:30.
The court has also identified next Thursday as an opinion day. We will be live blogging that morning, as well.
Morning Reads
Televised Supreme Court Sessions Backed by Key Senate Panel
Aidan Williams, Bloomberg (paywalled)
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced legislation “to televise Supreme Court proceedings, a step long resisted by the high court’s justices but sought by open government advocates,” according to Bloomberg. The legislation, which was approved with bipartisan support, “would force the justices to accept cameras unless a majority of them determine video coverage would interfere with the due process rights of a party to a case.” Bloomberg noted that “[t]he committee’s approval doesn’t necessarily mean the legislation will get a vote by the full Senate. … Similar bills passed the panel four times in previous Congresses but never came to a vote in the Senate.”
Louisiana Cops Threatened To Arrest a Man for Handing Out Religious Leaflets. They Got Qualified Immunity.
Jacob Sullum, Reason
Six years ago, Richard Hershey had a run-in with police while distributing leaflets “promoting the views of the Christian Vegetarian Association outside a Christian rock concert at the Bossier City Arena” in Louisiana. The officers asked him to leave and said he would be arrested if he didn’t, according to Reason. Now, Hershey is asking the Supreme Court to allow him to sue those officers for violating his First Amendment rights. He has appealed a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit holding that the officers are “protected by qualified immunity, a doctrine that bars federal civil rights claims unless they allege violations of ‘clearly established’ law.” “The right to evangelize in public, free of viewpoint-based government suppression, is as clearly established as any right in the firmament,” Hershey’s legal team, which includes former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, wrote in the petition for review.
Fed's Cook spent $1.2 million on legal services fighting firing by Trump
Ann Saphir and Michael S. Derby, Reuters (paywalled)
In a filing made public on Thursday by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook disclosed “almost $1.2 million in legal services payments” made as her case over President Donald Trump’s effort to remove her as a Fed governor “has made its way up to the Supreme Court,” according to Reuters. “The filing listed legal services payments on Cook’s behalf totaling $696,346 from the State Democracy Defenders Fund and $477,951 from Contina Impact. The filing also noted that Contina Impact paid $143,908 for ‘security services,’ and that three personal friends of Cook also made contributions on the Fed governor’s behalf for security work.” Reuters noted that the justices are “expected by the end of this month to rule in Cook’s case, which is seen as pivotal to the U.S. central bank’s retaining the ability to make monetary policy free of political pressures.”
On Site
Opinion Analysis
Court sides with challenger to law banning drug users from possessing guns
The court ruled in United States v. Hemani that the federal government cannot prosecute Ali Danial Hemani on charges that he violated a federal law barring users of illegal drugs from having a gun. Writing for the court, Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized that the government was seeking to “automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm” based only on a showing that he “regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance.” But the government’s arguments fell short, Gorsuch concluded, because the early American laws on which the government relied to support these restrictions “targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.”
Opinion Analysis
Divided court bars federal district court review of non-final state-court judgments
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday clarified the scope of a doctrine limiting lower federal courts’ authority to review state-court judgments. In an opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., the court, by a vote of 5-4, held that the status of a challenged state-court judgment – that is, whether it is a final decision from the highest court of a state or, instead, “is subject to further review in state appellate proceedings” – is not relevant in determining whether a federal district court can weigh in.
Opinion Mini-Analysis
Court rules defendants may under certain circumstances appeal a sentencing condition despite an appellate waiver
The court on Thursday sent the case of a Texas man who is seeking to appeal one of the conditions that a federal judge imposed as part of his sentence back to the lower court for another look. By a vote of 8-1, the justices ruled in Hunter v. United States that defendants can sometimes appeal a conviction or sentence even when they have agreed not to do so.
SCOTUS Quote
“In these circumstances, marijuana use today is like alcohol use at the founding. It is widespread and increasingly considered socially acceptable in many quarters. And from a practical standpoint, law enforcement widely tolerates the use of marijuana.”
— Justice Samuel Alito in United States v. Hemani (2026)
