The Court supposedly will be releasing one or more opinions today at 10AM eastern time.

Below are the list of what I see as the biggest cases which have been argued. There are several more which have not yet been heard by the Court, but will in the next two months such as the birthright citizenship case.

Louisiana v. Callais- Whether Louisiana's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Voting Right Act)

Trump v. Slaughter- Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey's Executor v. United States should be overruled. Also whether a federal court may prevent a person's removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana- Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. & Little v. Hecox- Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.

Trump v. Cook- Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

If there is more than one opinion, it will be released soon after the preceding one and after any justice finishes reading from the opinion or his/her concurrence or dissent.

They are also released in reverse seniority with the Chief Justice always being the most "senior" regardless of time on the Court. So if Jackson has the first opinion, then the next one can come from any Justice. If the first opinion is by Alito, it means the next opinion would be either by Alito again, Thomas or the Chief.

And I'm going to add, please lets keep this thread civil and discuss the rulings/merits of each case. Not stupid drive by troll comments or pointless sniping at others.

One box today, so likely 1-2 opinions. Maybe 3 if they're all shorties.

First today is Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist.

9-0 by Justice Sotomayor

Thomas has a concurring opinion.

Very short opinion, 11 pages.

Next can only be Sotomayor again, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts.

Quote:

---

This case involved a thorny question of civil procedure. If a plaintiff files a case against two corporations in a state trial court, and one of those companies transfers the case to federal court, where the other company is then dismissed from the case, what happens if a federal appeals court later determines after the trial is over that the second company should have stayed in the case? Does the plaintiff get a do-over back in state court?

The court vacates the district court's judgment for lack of jurisdiction.

"What remains for this Court to decide," Sotomayor writes, "is whether the District Court, having erroneously dismissed Whole Foods" from the case, "had jurisdiction to enter a final judgment as to Hain," the baby food maker. "It did not."

---

Second and last today is United States Postal Service v. Konan.

5-4 by Justice Thomas

Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch dissent.

Quote:

---

This is, as the name might suggest, a dispute over mail service specifically, when the USPS can be sued over undelivered mail. It was brought by a Texas woman who contends that she was the victim of a "campaign of racial harassment" at the hands of two employees at her local post office. She sued (among others) the USPS and the US under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a law that waives the government's general sovereign immunity from lawsuits. The FTCA contains an exception that leaves immunity in place for claims "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matters." The USPS contends that this exception applies to Lebene Konan's case. Konan contends that it does not, because the intentional mistreatment of her mail was not a "loss" or "miscarriage."

The court holds that the FTCA's postal exception DOES apply when postal workers intentionally fail to deliver the mail.

The majority says that it does "not decide whether all of Konan's claims are barred by the postal exception, or which arguments Konan adequately preserved."

---

Tomorrow will also be an opinion day.

Come on Louisiana v. Callais! You're killing me!

Rapier108 said:

---

Second and last today is United States Postal Service v. Konan.

5-4 by Justice Thomas

Jackson, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch dissent.

Quote:

---

This is, as the name might suggest, a dispute over mail service specifically, when the USPS can be sued over undelivered mail. It was brought by a Texas woman who contends that she was the victim of a "campaign of racial harassment" at the hands of two employees at her local post office. She sued (among others) the USPS and the US under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a law that waives the government's general sovereign immunity from lawsuits. The FTCA contains an exception that leaves immunity in place for claims "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matters." The USPS contends that this exception applies to Lebene Konan's case. Konan contends that it does not, because the intentional mistreatment of her mail was not a "loss" or "miscarriage."

The court holds that the FTCA's postal exception DOES apply when postal workers intentionally fail to deliver the mail.

The majority says that it does "not decide whether all of Konan's claims are barred by the postal exception, or which arguments Konan adequately preserved."

---

Tomorrow will also be an opinion day.

---

Asking for clarity here...

Konan sues the USPS and US claiming racial discrimination led to failure to deliver mail.

The USSC did not rule on this argument. They ruled on if Konan is allowed to sue the USPS and US? In this case, the majority ruled she can not using the immunity clause in the Federal Torts Claim Act?

What about the racial discrimination accusation?

I have several other questions about this case and about our judicial system in general along with a few personal statements on how inefficient our judicial system seems to operate but I dont want to bog down the thread. To keep it simple, for the common layman, this case seems to be an example of why people could get overwhelmed and frustrated and lose trust in the judicial branch of government.

I'm no lawyer so I can't really analyze the case beyond the basics already posted.

Hawg, BMX, or our other resident lawyers can probably answer it better than I can. Can't really find anything yet about the ruling other than a single article from USA Today.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/02/24/usps-lawsuit-supreme-court-ruling/87826801007/

To me, the claims that USPS wouldn't deliver to her because she is black and renting to white tenants sounds like bull***** I can believe a specific USPS employee, more likely a contractor, did it, given some of the horrible ones I've had to deal with over the years, but it wasn't a sanctioned USPS action.

BTKAG97 said:

---

Asking for clarity here...

Konan sues the USPS and US claiming racial discrimination led to failure to deliver mail.

The USSC did not rule on this argument. They ruled on if Konan is allowed to sue the USPS and US? In this case, the majority ruled she can not using the immunity clause in the Federal Torts Claim Act?

What about the racial discrimination accusation?

I have several other questions about this case and about our judicial system in general along with a few personal statements on how inefficient our judicial system seems to operate but I dont want to bog down the thread. To keep it simple, for the common layman, this case seems to be an example of why people could get overwhelmed and frustrated and lose trust in the judicial branch of government.

---

I get what you are saying generally, but does not apply here.

this is a great example of how cases should go. it doesn't matter if there was racial discrimination or not. the law does not allow konan or anyone to recover for racial discrimination for failure to deliver the mail.

the law specifically says you cannot sue the post office for all claims "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." that is what Konan did and wny the case should have been dismissed. whether it was for racial discrimination, a mean dog, bad google directions, or just asleep on the job. same result.

Thanks Rapier,

I don't ever post on theses, but I can tell you my understanding, as little as it is, of the Judicial System and how the Supreme Court functions has grown because of two reasons...first, spending about 3 hours reading all of the information at the Supreme Court (A new exhibit that is very informative) and the second reason is because of you posting these threads.

Not an attorney but here's the opinion. The summary is well written.

A woman sued the post office in Euless TX claiming they intentionally did not deliver her mail. The Federal Torts Act has a special provision for the postal service that grants them additional immunity for failing to deliver mail (you don't want people suing the government every time something gets lost in the mail) but the circuits seem to be split as to if an *intentional* withholding of the mail was an exception to the law. The District Court in this case dismissed the claim saying the postal service was immune to this type of suit, but the 5th Circuit reversed. A couple of other circuits had their own interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court agreed with the District Court.

Even if someone in the Postal Service intentionally does something to prevent you from getting your own mail, under this statute the Postal Service has immunity from civil action.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-351_7648.pdf

That tells me it's time to kill the Postal Service.

BBRex said:

---

That tells me it's time to kill the Postal Service.

---

Privatize it like the Germans did with Deutsche Post.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

Not an attorney but here's the opinion. The summary is well written.

A woman sued the post office in Euless TX claiming they intentionally did not deliver her mail. The Federal Torts Act has a special provision for the postal service that grants them additional immunity for failing to deliver mail (you don't want people suing the government every time something gets lost in the mail) but the circuits seem to be split as to if an *intentional* withholding of the mail was an exception to the law. The District Court in this case dismissed the claim saying the postal service was immune to this type of suit, but the 5th Circuit reversed. A couple of other circuits had their own interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court agreed with the District Court.

Even if someone in the Postal Service intentionally does something to prevent you from getting your own mail, under this statute the Postal Service has immunity from civil action.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-351_7648.pdf

---

This seems like it could be exploited when combined with mail-in-balloting, no? Can post office guy refuse to deliver ballots to certain houses based on political signs in the yard?

I understand there may be some nuances regarding whether that would trigger a criminal violation, but honestly the way voting laws and rights go in this Country, seems like this may not be such a good thing.

This has no effect on criminal prosecutions.

This is just another reason the government sucks. They have a task, and they can knowingly, intentionally not complete that task, with KNOWN bias/malice/intent, and there is nothing you can do.

BMX Bandit said:

---

This has no effect on criminal prosecutions.

---

yea, that wasn't the question. The question was whether this could protect nefarious postmen in the even they jack with mail in ballots.

Lots of times the criminal elements require some sort of intent.

So slack arse USPS guy just doesn't deliver the mail to Blacks or MAGA or whatever. Can they hide behind this.

Cause if there is a way to cheat, the Dems will exploit it.

Edit to Clarify: just asking if this provides a potential protection for someone to commit voter manipulation that may not meet the standard of criminal statutes. Some posters instead of reading and comprehending knee jerk respond, since sometimes those "lots of words" have a purpose.

Lots of words.

Still, this ruling has zero effect (zip, zilch, nada) on criminal activity.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

Not an attorney but here's the opinion. The summary is well written.

A woman sued the post office in Euless TX claiming they intentionally did not deliver her mail. The Federal Torts Act has a special provision for the postal service that grants them additional immunity for failing to deliver mail (you don't want people suing the government every time something gets lost in the mail) but the circuits seem to be split as to if an *intentional* withholding of the mail was an exception to the law. The District Court in this case dismissed the claim saying the postal service was immune to this type of suit, but the 5th Circuit reversed. A couple of other circuits had their own interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court agreed with the District Court.

Even if someone in the Postal Service intentionally does something to prevent you from getting your own mail, under this statute the Postal Service has immunity from civil action.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-351_7648.pdf

---

The question I am asking is could a postman refuse to deliver mail during MIB season and be immune based on the above.

IANAL, but I'm assuming that while you couldn't sue them for not delivering your ballot, they would likely be guilty of violating some other statute related to dealing with ballots/elections/etc.

From the postal guys perspective, it's just another piece of mail.

The ruling or interpretation thereof would seem indicate the USPS has no fiduciary duty to actually deliver the mail, which may include ballots.

Just sayin if Dems see an opportunity they will exploit it. I imagine what I describe already happens, particularly in areas where it can be done and may result in swinging a close race.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

Not an attorney but here's the opinion. The summary is well written.

A woman sued the post office in Euless TX claiming they intentionally did not deliver her mail. The Federal Torts Act has a special provision for the postal service that grants them additional immunity for failing to deliver mail (you don't want people suing the government every time something gets lost in the mail) but the circuits seem to be split as to if an *intentional* withholding of the mail was an exception to the law. The District Court in this case dismissed the claim saying the postal service was immune to this type of suit, but the 5th Circuit reversed. A couple of other circuits had their own interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court agreed with the District Court.

Even if someone in the Postal Service intentionally does something to prevent you from getting your own mail, under this statute the Postal Service has immunity from civil action.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-351_7648.pdf

---

Thank you. This perfectly clarifies my questioning. Far more than BMX's typical style of reply which is factual but not very helpful. <-- there was supposed to be a smiley face icon after that remark that didn't post.

The 1st court did throw out the case as it should have been. It just seemed strange to have made it's way all the way to the USSC for an issue completely different from the initial case.

On a tangent, given this immunity clause, it seems strange the USPS still caters to the vocally loud minority when it comes to the inefficient delivery process when the USPS loses millions of dollars every year. Meaning, the USPS should dictate where they will deliver someone's mail instead of people telling the USPS where it has to delivery it. For example - walking routes are time heavy and inefficient. I'll leave it at that since this is a completely different issue that is not addressed via the cases discussed in this thread.

SCOTUS MATH: There are 3 cases left from the October sitting, two of which are "major" (race-based redistricting and conversion therapy).

After today, Justices Alito and Gorsuch are the only ones who have not authored an opinion from this sitting...

— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) February 24, 2026