24A884 - Trump v. CASA Inc. - Opinion Announcement - June 27, 2025

A case in which the Court held that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does not violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

A case in which the Court held that a Texas law that requires any website that publishes content one-third or more of which is “harmful to minors” to verify the age of each of its users before providing access is subject to “intermediate scrutiny,” and the law at issue is constitutional under that test.

A case in which the Court held that federal district courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that prohibit enforcement of executive actions beyond the parties before the court.

A case in which the Court held that Congress did not violate the nondelegation doctrine in the way it gave power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, nor did the FCC violate the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions.

A case in which the Court held that public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.

A case in which the Court held that the 30-day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement, and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief in a withholding-only proceeding is not a “final order of removal” for purposes of triggering this deadline.

A case in which the Court held that a Texas death-row inmate has standing to sue the state over its refusal to give him access to DNA testing.

A case in which the Court held that the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act’s enactment, then vacated and resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the Act’s enactment.

A case in which the Court held that the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision does not unambiguously confer a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider and therefore cannot be enforced via § 1983.

A case in which the Court held that the Tobacco Control Act’s provision that “any person adversely affected” by the FDA’s denial of a marketing application may seek judicial review extends to retailers who would sell the new tobacco product, not just the manufacturers who applied for approval.