June 30, 2026 · First Amendment
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm'n
The Supreme Court decided that the government cannot set limits on how much money a political party spends when it is working together with a candidate. In the past, there was a rule saying a party could only spend a certain amount on things like TV ads if they talked to the candidate about it first. The Court said this rule went against the First Amendment's right to free speech. The judges explained that parties and candidates need to work together to share their message with voters. They also said that because there are already other laws that make everyone show where their money comes from, these extra limits aren't needed to stop cheating or bribery.
Read the full version →June 30, 2026 · Fourteenth Amendment
Trump v. Barbara
The Supreme Court decided that if you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. This is true even if your parents are visiting from another country or do not have legal permission to be here. The Court looked at the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which says people born here are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. The judges explained that this usually means anyone who has to follow American laws while they are here. Because children born here grow up under American protection and laws, the Court said the law makes them citizens automatically. This decision means the President cannot make a new rule to stop these children from being citizens.
Read the full version →June 30, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Jones v. United States
A man named Cedric Ray Jones admitted to a crime in 2015 and signed a paper saying he would not try to change his conviction later. A few years later, the Supreme Court ruled that the law he was convicted under was not fair and was 'unconstitutionally vague.' Jones tried to use this new rule to get out of prison, but the lower courts said he couldn't because of the paper he signed. The Supreme Court decided not to take his case, so he stays in prison. One Justice, Sotomayor, said that even though they aren't taking the case now, lower courts should think about whether it is right to keep someone in jail for a law that was found to be unconstitutional.
Read the full version →June 30, 2026 · Civil Rights
West Virginia v. B. P. J.
Imagine there are two separate races: one for fast cars and one for bikes. The rules say only bikes can be in the bike race so that everyone has a fair chance to win. Some people who have very fast bikes that look like cars wanted to join the bike race, but the states said 'no' because they are still built differently. The Supreme Court said the states are allowed to keep the races separate based on how people are born because it keeps the games fair and safe for the girls. This means that in many states, girls' sports will only be for people who were born as girls.
Read the full version →June 30, 2026 · Fourteenth Amendment
Trump v. Barbara Revisions: 7/01/26
The Supreme Court had to decide if children born in America are citizens even if their parents are only here for a short time or are not supposed to be here. The Court looked at the Fourteenth Amendment, which says anyone born in the U.S. and 'under its jurisdiction' is a citizen. The Court decided that being 'under the jurisdiction' just means you have to follow U.S. laws while you are here. Because these children are born on American soil, the Court said they are automatically U.S. citizens. This means the President cannot change who is a citizen by simply signing a new order.
Read the full version →June 29, 2026 · Civil Rights
Doe v. Hochul
Imagine there is a big national rule that says your boss has to try and help you if you have a religious reason for not doing something. But then your state makes a local rule that says if your boss helps you, the state will fine the business or shut it down. In this case, some doctors and nurses were fired because they wouldn't take a vaccine, and the state told the hospitals they weren't allowed to give them a pass. The lower courts said the hospitals were allowed to fire the workers because following the state rule was too difficult and expensive otherwise. Three Supreme Court justices thought this was wrong because national civil rights should be more important than state rules, but the rest of the Court decided not to take the case.
Read the full version →June 29, 2026 · Civil Rights
Smith v. Kind
A man in prison was left in a freezing cold room for almost a whole day without any clothes or blankets. The temperature inside the room got as low as 25 degrees, which is below freezing. He sued the guards, but the courts said the guards couldn't be punished because there wasn't a previous court case about this exact temperature for that exact amount of time. Three judges on the Supreme Court disagreed, saying that common sense and basic decency should be enough to know that freezing a person is wrong. But because the rest of the Supreme Court decided not to take the case, the guards win and don't have to pay for what they did. This shows how hard it is to win a case against a government worker.
Read the full version →June 29, 2026 · First Amendment
Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc.
Imagine if someone told a lie about you. Usually, you could sue them for hurting your reputation. But under a famous rule from 1964, if you are a famous person like a movie star or a politician, it is much harder to win. You have to prove the person who told the lie did it on purpose or knew it was false. Alan Dershowitz is a famous lawyer who says CNN lied about him, but he lost his case because of that rule. He asked the Supreme Court to change the rule so famous people could win more easily. The Supreme Court said 'no' to hearing his case, so the old rule stays the same for now.
Read the full version →June 29, 2026 · Fourth Amendment
Chatrie v. United States
Imagine you have a personal diary that keeps track of everywhere you go every two minutes. Instead of keeping it in your pocket, you let a friend keep it on their shelf so they can help you remember your favorite places. This case asks: can the police take that diary from your friend and read it without a special reason? The Supreme Court said 'No.' Because that diary shows so much about your private life—like where you go to the doctor or who you visit—the police must follow the rules of the Fourth Amendment to see it. Even though the police were trying to catch a bank robber, the Court said your location history is private, and the government can't just look at it whenever they want.
Read the full version →June 29, 2026 · Election Law
Watson v. Republican National Committee
Imagine you have a homework assignment due on Tuesday. The teacher says as long as you put it in the mailbox by Tuesday night, it counts, even if the teacher doesn't get it until Thursday. Some people argued that 'due Tuesday' means the teacher must have it in their hands on Tuesday. The Supreme Court decided the teacher is right: 'doing' the work and 'giving' it to the mail is the important part that has to happen by the deadline. Since the students finished their 'voting' on time, it doesn't matter if the mail takes a few extra days to deliver the paper.
Read the full version →June 29, 2026 · Federalism
Trump v. Cook
Imagine the President is like a principal and the Federal Reserve Governors are like teachers with special contracts. Usually, a principal can't just fire a teacher because they had a disagreement; they have to prove the teacher did something really wrong. In this case, the President tried to fire a Governor by just saying she did something bad on the internet. The Supreme Court said, 'Wait a minute—you have to follow the rules.' They ruled that the President must give the official a fair chance to tell her side of the story and show evidence before she can be kicked out. This keeps the person in charge of the country's money from being bullied by politics.
Read the full version →June 29, 2026 · Separation of Powers
Trump v. Slaughter
Imagine a big company where the President is the boss. For a long time, there was a rule that the boss couldn't fire certain managers unless they did something really bad, like stealing. The Supreme Court just changed that rule for the FTC, a group that makes big rules for businesses. The Court said that because the President is responsible for how the government works, he must be allowed to pick the managers he wants to work with. If he thinks a manager is doing a bad job or has the wrong ideas, he can now fire them just like a regular boss would. This makes sure the people we elect have the power to actually run the government the way they promised.
Read the full version →June 25, 2026 · Second Amendment
Wolford v. Lopez
Imagine if a state said you couldn't wear a certain t-shirt in any store unless the store owner put up a special sign saying it was okay. Usually, you can wear what you want unless a store has a 'no shirt' rule. Hawaii tried to do this with guns—they said even if you have a permit, you couldn't bring your gun into a pizza shop or a mall unless the owner specifically said 'yes.' The Supreme Court said this is wrong. They ruled that because self-defense is a basic right, the rule should be that you can carry your gun unless the owner says 'no.' Hawaii couldn't find any old laws from the 1700s that worked the way their new law did, so the Court took the law away.
Read the full version →June 25, 2026 · Immigration
Mullin v. Doe
The government has a program called Temporary Protected Status (TPS) that lets people from dangerous countries stay in the U.S. for a while. When the government tried to end this program for people from Syria and Haiti, those people went to court to stop it. They said the government didn't follow the right rules or was being unfair. However, the Supreme Court looked at a law passed by Congress that says judges are not allowed to look at these specific decisions. Because of that law, the Court said the judges must step aside, and the government can go ahead and end the program for those countries.
Read the full version →June 25, 2026 · Immigration
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
Imagine there is a popular club with a long line. The rules say that once you 'arrive in the club,' the manager must check your ID. This case asked if you have 'arrived in the club' while you are still standing on the sidewalk waiting to get through the door. The Supreme Court said no—you haven't arrived 'in' the club until you actually step inside. Because people waiting at the border haven't stepped inside the U.S. yet, the government doesn't have to start their legal paperwork right away. This allows the border patrol to tell people to wait in Mexico until there is enough room to help them.
Read the full version →June 25, 2026 · Federalism
Monsanto v. Durnell
The Supreme Court had to decide who gets to control the warning labels on weed killer: the national government or the states. A man sued a company called Monsanto because he got sick and said the label should have warned him about cancer. However, a federal agency called the EPA had already looked at the chemical and decided a cancer warning wasn't needed. The Supreme Court said that because there is a federal law aimed at making labels the same everywhere, one state cannot force a company to change its label. This means the rules the EPA makes are the final rules for everyone.
Read the full version →June 23, 2026 · Fifth Amendment
Pung v. Isabella County
Imagine you owe a friend $5, but you don't pay. Your friend takes your $200 video game and sells it quickly to someone else for $75 just to get their money back. This court case says that under the Constitution, your friend only has to give you back $70 (the $75 they got minus the $5 you owed). You can't complain that the game was actually worth $200 because you had plenty of time to sell it yourself before your friend took it. The government works the same way with houses and taxes.
Read the full version →June 23, 2026 · First Amendment
Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety
Imagine if your school got a special gift of money from the government to buy new books, but the gift came with a rule that teachers can't take away students' religious items. If a teacher did take something away, the student might want the teacher to pay them back with their own money. The Supreme Court said that's not allowed in this case. They explained that because only the school took the money and agreed to the rule, only the school can be in trouble. The individual teacher never signed a contract with the government, so they can't be sued for their private money under that specific rule. It's like saying you can't be blamed for a deal your boss made if you weren't part of it.
Read the full version →June 23, 2026 · International Law
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe
Imagine if a company made a specialized lock that a bad government used to trap innocent people. The people who were trapped tried to sue the company in an American court. The Supreme Court said no, because the law didn't specifically say you could sue the 'helper' of the bad government. The judges also said they don't have the power to make up new rules for these kinds of international problems. Instead, they said that only Congress—the people we vote for—can decide if it's okay to sue companies for helping other countries do bad things. This keeps the courts from getting involved in complicated arguments between the U.S. and other nations.
Read the full version →June 23, 2026 · Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba)
A long time ago, the government of Cuba took away land and buildings belonging to American companies without paying for them. For years, those companies weren't allowed to sue Cuba in U.S. courts because of a rule called 'sovereign immunity,' which usually protects countries from being sued. In 1996, a law called the Helms-Burton Act was passed to let Americans finally sue the Cuban companies using that stolen land. The Supreme Court had to decide if the old 'protection' rule still stopped these lawsuits. The Court said 'no'—because the 1996 law was written specifically to allow these suits, the old protection rule doesn't apply here. Now, companies like Exxon can try to get money back for what was taken from them.
Read the full version →June 23, 2026 · Immigration
Blanche v. Lau
When someone has a green card, they usually don't have to ask for permission to come back into the U.S. after a trip. But there is a rule that says if you have committed certain crimes, the government can treat you like a brand-new stranger asking to get in. In this case, a man was charged with a crime before he went on a trip, and when he came back, the border officers treated him like a new applicant. A lower court said the officers weren't allowed to do that unless they were 100% sure he did the crime right then at the airport. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying officers can make that choice quickly at the border, and the government only has to prove the crime later during a trial.
Read the full version →June 23, 2026 · Administrative Law
Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety Revisions: 6/24/26
The Supreme Court ruled on whether a person can sue a prison guard personally for money when the guard breaks a federal law about religious freedom. The law in this case, RLUIPA, is based on a part of the Constitution that lets the government give money to states if they follow certain rules. The Court said that because this is like a deal or a contract, only the state department that took the money and agreed to the rules can be sued. Since the individual guards didn't sign a deal with the government to be sued personally, the Court said they can't be held responsible for paying money out of their own pockets. The Court didn't say the guards were right to shave the man's hair, just that this specific law doesn't let him sue them personally for money.
Read the full version →June 22, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Grayson v. United States
A woman named Ashley Grayson was in trouble for trying to pay someone to commit a crime. The police used a secret recording of a FaceTime call as proof. But there is a federal law that says if a recording is made illegally, it can't be used in court. A lower court said it was okay to use it anyway because the police didn't do anything wrong themselves—they just 'inherited' the recording. The Supreme Court looked at this and, after the government admitted the lower court was wrong, they sent it back to be fixed. One judge disagreed, saying there was so much other proof that she was guilty that the mistake didn't really change the outcome.
Read the full version →June 22, 2026 · Eighth Amendment
Saldaño v. Texas
The Supreme Court was asked to help a man named Victor Saldaño who is on death row. A long time ago, the Supreme Court said it is against the law to execute people who have an intellectual disability (this means people whose brains don't work the same way as others). In this case, both the man's lawyers and the government experts agreed that he has this disability and should not be executed. They both asked a Texas court to give him a new hearing to prove it. However, the Texas court said no, and now the Supreme Court has also said it will not step in. This means the man could still be executed even though everyone involved in the case agrees his disability might make that illegal.
Read the full version →June 22, 2026 · Fourth Amendment
United States v. Carter
Usually, when a police officer talks to you, a judge decides if you were 'trapped' or 'free to go' by asking what an average person would feel. In this case, a court in D.C. said we shouldn't just look at an average person, but specifically how a Black person might feel when talking to the police. They argued that because of history and how the world works, a Black person might feel they have to stay even if the officer doesn't tell them to. Some judges on the Supreme Court thought this was a mistake and wanted to change it, saying the law shouldn't look at race at all. Because the Supreme Court didn't take the case, the D.C. rule stays for now, but it doesn't apply to the rest of the country yet.
Read the full version →June 22, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
McCarthy v. Hernandez
Pedro Hernandez confessed to a very old crime, but his lawyers said his confessions shouldn't have been used because of how the police questioned him. At his trial, the jury asked the judge a question about whether an early mistake by the police meant they had to ignore all his later confessions. The judge said 'no' because New York law says only judges, not juries, worry about that specific legal rule. A lower federal court thought the judge was wrong and ordered a new trial, but the Supreme Court stepped in. The Supreme Court said that since there is no national rule saying juries must be taught this specific lesson, the original conviction should stand.
Read the full version →June 18, 2026 · Second Amendment
United States v. Hemani
Imagine a law that says if you use a certain kind of medicine or drug that the government doesn't like, you aren't allowed to have a gun to protect your house. Ali Hemani was a man who used marijuana but was a peaceful person with a job. The government tried to punish him for having a gun while using drugs. The Supreme Court said the government can't do that because, in American history, laws only took guns away from people who were actually dangerous or couldn't take care of themselves. Since the government didn't prove Hemani was dangerous, they couldn't take away his right to have a gun for protection.
Read the full version →June 18, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Hunter v. United States
When someone pleads guilty to a crime, they often sign a paper saying they won't appeal their sentence. However, the Supreme Court ruled that if a judge makes a giant, obvious mistake—like giving a punishment that is totally illegal—the person can still appeal. This exists because the court system must always be fair, and some mistakes are too big to ignore. For most normal cases, though, the promise not to appeal still counts.
Read the full version →June 18, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Hunter v. United States Revisions: 6/19/26
When someone pleads guilty to a crime, they often sign a paper saying they will not appeal, or challenge, the judge's final decision. In this case, a man signed that paper but later wanted to appeal because the judge ordered him to take specific medicine while he was on probation. The Supreme Court said that usually, these signed promises should be followed. However, the Court also said there is an exception for 'miscarriages of justice.' This means if a judge makes a giant, obvious mistake—like giving a punishment that is not allowed by law or being unfair based on someone's race—the person can still appeal even if they signed the paper. The Court believes this is necessary to keep the legal system fair for everyone.
Read the full version →June 18, 2026 · Federalism
T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation
If a state judge makes a decision you don't like, you can't just run to a lower federal judge to ask them to cancel it. This case says that even if you are still fighting that decision in the state's own appeals courts, a federal trial court isn't allowed to step in. The rules say that federal trial courts and state courts are mostly separate groups, and if you want to switch from the state side to the federal side, you usually have to wait until you reach the very top—the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read the full version →June 18, 2026 · Federalism
T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation Revisions: 6/19/26
The Supreme Court decided that if a state judge makes a ruling, a person cannot go to a lower federal court to ask that federal judge to cancel the state judge's order. This is true even if the person is still trying to appeal the case in the state's own higher courts. The Court said that federal and state courts are mostly separate. Lower federal courts are meant to start new cases, not fix mistakes from state courts. Only the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to look at a completed case from a state's highest court and change it.
Read the full version →June 15, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Alabama v. Powell
A man in Alabama was found guilty of murder, but a local appeals court said the trial was unfair. The prosecutor told the jury that the man was 'the only one' who knew where the gun was, which the man's lawyers said was a way of teasing him for not speaking in court. Two Supreme Court justices thought the prosecutor was just doing his job, but the rest of the Supreme Court decided not to get involved. This means the man might get a new trial because his right to stay silent is very important.
Read the full version →June 15, 2026 · First Amendment
E.D. v. Noblesville School District
A student wanted to put up posters for her school club, but the school said no because of the message on the posters. The student sued, saying this violated her right to free speech. The Supreme Court decided not to take the case, so the school district won. One Justice, Samuel Alito, disagreed and said the Court should have used this case to make the rules more clear for students and schools.
Read the full version →June 11, 2026 · Administrative Law
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.
Imagine a rulebook for a club that says 'if someone breaks a rule, a teacher can cancel their membership.' The Supreme Court said this doesn't mean students can sue each other to kick members out. Only the 'teacher' (in this case, the government) or the specific people mentioned in other parts of the book has that power. The Court decided that unless Congress clearly says 'you can sue,' judges shouldn't make up new ways for people to take each other to court.
Read the full version →June 11, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Abouammo v. United States Revisions: 6/16/26
The U.S. Constitution says that if you are charged with a crime, your trial must happen in the same state and area where the crime was committed. In this case, a man was in Seattle when he made a fake invoice and emailed it to the FBI. The government tried him in California because the FBI agents he was trying to trick were based there. The Supreme Court said that was wrong because the actual act of making the fake document happened in Seattle. Even though the man was trying to affect an investigation in California, the Court ruled that the trial has to stay where the physical work of the crime was done. This helps make sure the government doesn't take people far away from home to go to court.
Read the full version →June 11, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Abouammo v. United States
The government tried a man in San Francisco for making a fake paper in Seattle. The Supreme Court said this was not allowed because the Constitution says people have a right to be tried in the place where they actually committed the crime. Since he made the fake paper at his home in Seattle, that is where his trial had to be. Even though he was trying to ruin an investigation in San Francisco, his actual 'crime' was making the paper, which happened in Washington state.
Read the full version →June 11, 2026 · Civil Procedure
Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.
When someone asks a court for help with debt (bankruptcy), they have to list everything they own. Mr. Keathley forgot to list a lawsuit he had against a company after a car crash. The lower courts said he couldn't have his lawsuit because he 'lied' by omission, even though he said it was just a mistake. The Supreme Court said that was wrong because judges should look at the whole story to see if it was a real accident or a plan to cheat.
Read the full version →June 8, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Clark v. Mississippi
A man named Tony Clark said his trial was unfair because the lawyers picking the jury seemed to be removing people based on their race. He blamed his own lawyer for not doing a good enough job pointing this out. The state court said it didn't matter because Clark couldn't prove that different people on the jury would have changed the final 'guilty' verdict. Justice Sotomayor said that way of thinking is probably wrong because unfair jury picking is a big mistake that ruins the whole trial, no matter what the verdict is.
Read the full version →June 4, 2026 · Patent Law
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
A company named Amarin made a drug called Vascepa that helps people with two different health problems. They had a special patent for one of those problems, meaning only they were allowed to sell the drug for that specific use. Another company, Hikma, started selling a cheaper generic version but only advertised it for the health problem that didn't have a patent. Amarin sued, saying Hikma was secretly trying to get doctors to use the cheap drug for the patented problem too. The Supreme Court said no, Hikma didn't do anything wrong because they were just following normal business rules and didn't clearly tell anyone to break the patent.
Read the full version →June 4, 2026 · Securities Law
Sripetch v. SEC
Imagine a bully takes a toy from a kid, plays with it, and sells it for five dollars, but the kid still has plenty of other toys and isn't sad. The law says the bully shouldn't get to keep that five dollars just because the kid is okay. The Supreme Court decided that the SEC can take away the money made by cheaters even if they can't prove the people they cheated lost money. This is to make sure that doing the wrong thing never pays off.
Read the full version →June 4, 2026 · Seventh Amendment
FCC v. AT&T
Imagine a school principal says you broke a rule and tells you to pay a $5 fine. But the principal doesn't have the power to take your money. If you don't pay, the school has to take you to a real court and prove to a group of neighbors (a jury) that you actually did it. Only then would you have to pay. The Supreme Court said this is okay because even though the principal made a decision first, you still get your 'day in court' with a jury before any money is taken from you. In this case, the FCC is the principal, and the big phone companies are the students.
Read the full version →June 2, 2026 · Voting Rights
Allen v. Milligan
Alabama made a map for elections that a lower court said was unfair to Black voters. The lower court wanted to use a different map to make things fair, but the Supreme Court stepped in and said 'stop.' The Supreme Court says that when a state makes a map, they have the right to follow their own goals, like keeping certain neighborhoods together or helping current leaders stay in office. They also said it's too close to the 2026 election to change everything now, because that might confuse people. So, for now, Alabama will use the map the state leaders picked instead of the one the court thought was fairer.
Read the full version →June 1, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Whitton v. Dixon
Imagine you are accused of breaking a window. A witness lies and says they saw you do it, but they also lie and say they have never been in trouble before. Later, someone finds a video that actually proves you broke the window. The court in this case said that when deciding if the witness's lie tricked the jury, we can't look at the new video. We have to look at what the jury knew at the time to see if the lie made the trial unfair. You can't use new secrets to fix an old mistake in the trial.
Read the full version →May 28, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Fernandez v. United States
Imagine there are two lines for help in a computer lab. Line A is for people who think their grade was calculated wrong, and Line B is for people who need to go home early for a doctor's appointment. Joe Fernandez tried to get in Line B (going home early) to argue that his grade was wrong because it's easier to get through that line. The Supreme Court said that's not allowed. If you think your 'grade' (your conviction) is wrong, you must wait in Line A and follow its very strict rules. You can't use the 'doctor's appointment' line to fix a grade mistake.
Read the full version →May 28, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Rutherford v. United States
Imagine a school rule said that if you were caught chewing gum twice, you had to miss recess for a month. Later, the school changes the rule so you only miss recess for one week. The kids who were already halfway through their month-long punishment ask the principal to let them go based on the new rule. The Supreme Court said that unless the school board specifically said the new rule applies to everyone (even people already punished), the principal must make them finish their month. The Court said that just because the rule changed, it doesn't make the old punishment 'extraordinary' or wrong.
Read the full version →May 28, 2026 · Federal Arbitration Act
Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock
Usually, if you have a problem with your boss and your contract says you have to use 'arbitration,' you can't go to a normal court. But there is a special law that says workers who help move things between states don't have to follow those rules. In this case, a delivery driver in Colorado was told he had to use arbitration because he never left the state of Colorado. The Supreme Court said that doesn't matter; because the bread he was delivering came from bakeries in other states, he was part of a big, interstate team. So, he is allowed to use a regular court to solve his problem.
Read the full version →May 28, 2026 · Criminal Procedure
Pitchford v. Cain
When someone is on trial, a group of people called a jury decides if they are guilty. Lawyers are allowed to send some people home, but they aren't allowed to do it just because of someone's skin color. In this case, a man named Terry Pitchford argued that the prosecutor sent almost all the black jurors home unfairly. When his lawyers tried to explain why this was wrong, the judge stopped them from talking and told them the record was already finished. The Supreme Court said that was a mistake. They ruled that the judge must let lawyers explain their side to make sure the jury is picked fairly for everyone.
Read the full version →May 26, 2026 · Federalism
Florida v. California
Imagine if two neighbors had a huge argument, and there was only one judge in the whole town who was allowed to settle it. If that judge told them 'I'm too busy, go away,' the neighbors would have no way to fix their problem. In this case, Florida wanted to sue Washington and California because it thought their rules for truck drivers were dangerous. Florida went to the Supreme Court because the law says that is the only place states can sue each other. But the Supreme Court said 'No,' without explaining why. Some of the judges thought this was wrong because if the Supreme Court won't listen, there is nowhere else for the states to go to solve their fight.
Read the full version →