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

Below are the list of what I see as the biggest cases remaining for the term.

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.

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.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission- Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. 109.37.

Watson v. Republican National Committee- Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. 7, 2 U.S.C. 1, and 3 U.S.C. 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.

Trump v. Barbara- Birthright Citizenship

Monsanto Company v. Durnell- Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.

Chatrie v. United States- Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.

Trump v. Miot & Mullin v. Doe- Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Haitian nationals (Miot) and Syrian nationals (Mullin).

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.

Opinions 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, the Chief or Per Curiam.

As of this morning, there are 17 remaining cases.

Three boxes, so 3-7 opinions likely.

Thank you, sir! Appreciate it. Last week of opinions. So should be getting all the juicy ones this week.

will25u said:

---

Thank you, sir! Appreciate it. Last week of opinions. So should be getting all the juicy ones this week.

---

Maybe. Could still go to next week. We'll know on Thursday if that's it or not.

First up this morning is Cisco Systems v. Doe.

6-3 by Justice Barrett

Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent (to varying degrees)

Quote:

---

(1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.

This is a lawsuit brought by practitioners of the Falun Gong religion, who contend that they or family members were victims of human rights abuses committed in China. They contend that Cisco Systems helped the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party to create a massive online surveillance system to find Falun Gong practitioners.

The case as it came to the Supreme Court was about whether the plaintiffs could rely on either the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 law that allows foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for serious violations of international law, or the Torture Victim Protection Act, a 1992 law that allows suits against individuals who subject others to torture while acting on behalf of a foreign government, to sue Cisco for aiding and abetting the human rights abuses.

The court today holds that "courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms" and that the TVPA "does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability."

---

#2 today is Exxon Mobil v. Corporacion Cimex.

6-3 by Justice Kavanaugh

Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissent

Quote:

---

Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The question in this case was whether the Helms-Burton Act, a 1996 law that allows U.S. nationals to bring a lawsuit against anyone who "traffics in property" confiscated by the Cuban government after 1959, trumps the normal presumption, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, that foreign governments cannot be sued in U.S. courts, or whether plaintiffs in lawsuits brought under the Helms-Burton Act must show that they can meet one of the exceptions under the FSIA to that normal presumption.

The court holds that the Helms-Burton Act itself trumps the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities. Therefore, the court says, "plaintiffs who sue Cuban agencies or instrumentalities under the Act are not required to also satisfy an FSIA exception."

The DC Circuit is reversed and remanded.

---

#3 today is Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety

6-3 by Justice Gorsuch

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent

Quote:

---

Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

It holds that holds that a Louisiana man cannot sue prison officials who shaved his head even after he showed them a copy of a court ruling that allowed him to keep his long hair for religious reasons.

The ruling by the 5th Circuit is upheld.

---

Continuing on is Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan

9-0ish by Justice Alito

Thomas dissents in part, concurs in part, and concurs in the judgement. And like he loves to do, he cites his previous dissents along with something by Scalia.

Quote:

---

(1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property's fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.

This was a challenge under both the Fifth Amendment's takings clause (which bars the government from taking private property for public use without paying "just compensation") and the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines. It arose when the state foreclosed on a house for failure to pay taxes and sold it for $76,000. The former homeowner got the difference between the taxes he owed ($2200) and the sale price, but then the buyer turned around and sold it again for much more. The former owner argued that he was entitled to the difference between the second sale price (which he says was the fair market value) and the taxes that he owed.

---

I could swear they had a case previously for the exact same thing, not more than a year or two ago. Will have to go back and look.

Last up is Blanche v. Lau

6-3 by Justice Thomas

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent.

Quote:

---

Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States.

The court holds that federal immigration law does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.

The court throws out the Second Circuit's ruling in favor of Lau, the green card holder, and sends the case back to the lower court.

---

12 remaining cases, including numerous "big ones" so almost a certainty we'll have at least one opinion day next week unless they add this Friday as one.

Okay, I've got stuff to do so I'll let anyone else who wants to analyze the decisions today handle it.

You are thinking of Tyler v Hennepin

Quote:

---

Tyler v.
Hennepin County, 598 U. S. 631 (2023), we held that the
Fifth Amendment Takings Clause requires the government
to return any surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure sales,
i.e., the difference between the sale price and the taxpayer's
debt. The question presented here is whether the govern-
ment must pay more when the sale price falls below the
property's hypothetical fair market value.

---

I'm expecting some long dissents when the last few "big" Supreme Court cases roll out over the next 10-14 days.

Several key cases likely assigned to Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and the CJ will certainly draw strong dissents and I think the reason there are still 10 or so such…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) June 23, 2026

Rapier108 said:

---

Last up is Blanche v. Lau

6-3 by Justice Thomas

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent.

Quote:

---

Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States.

The court holds that federal immigration law does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.

The court throws out the Second Circuit's ruling in favor of Lau, the green card holder, and sends the case back to the lower court.

---

12 remaining cases, including numerous "big ones" so almost a certainty we'll have at least one opinion day next week unless they add this Friday as one.

Okay, I've got stuff to do so I'll let anyone else who wants to analyze the decisions today.

---

Charged green card holders returning from abroad can be treated as entering the country for the first time, paroled & subjected to admissibility proceedings, which require them to prove they are entitled to stay in the U.S., #SCOTUS Justice Thomas wrote. https://t.co/YKck2mGSEn

— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) June 23, 2026

Any speculation as to how Watson v. RNC will go?

will25u said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Last up is Blanche v. Lau

6-3 by Justice Thomas

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent.

Quote:

---

Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States.

The court holds that federal immigration law does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.

The court throws out the Second Circuit's ruling in favor of Lau, the green card holder, and sends the case back to the lower court.

---

12 remaining cases, including numerous "big ones" so almost a certainty we'll have at least one opinion day next week unless they add this Friday as one.

Okay, I've got stuff to do so I'll let anyone else who wants to analyze the decisions today.

---

Charged green card holders returning from abroad can be treated as entering the country for the first time, paroled & subjected to admissibility proceedings, which require them to prove they are entitled to stay in the U.S., #SCOTUS Justice Thomas wrote. https://t.co/YKck2mGSEn

— Katie Buehler (@bykatiebuehler) June 23, 2026

---

JDUB08AG said:

---

"Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent."

Pure poetry

---

Exactly, whatever side those three clown women take (and sometimes the other woman Roberts) I am on the opposite side almost all the time.

Bulldog73 said:

---

I get excited the case is going the right way when I see Jackson in dissent. Even more so when she is joined by Kagan and Brown. Have there ever been more predictably wrong justices in the history of the court?

---

Aren't Brown & Jackson the same????

Come Out Roll said:

---

Bulldog73 said:

---

I get excited the case is going the right way when I see Jackson in dissent. Even more so when she is joined by Kagan and Brown. Have there ever been more predictably wrong justices in the history of the court?

---

Aren't Brown & Jackson the same????

---

Yes, he should have said Sotomayor as the third justice.

Come Out Roll said:

---

Bulldog73 said:

---

I get excited the case is going the right way when I see Jackson in dissent. Even more so when she is joined by Kagan and Brown. Have there ever been more predictably wrong justices in the history of the court?

---

Aren't Brown & Jackson the same????

---

Her dissents are so long, they count twice.

Rapier108 said:

---

Continuing on is Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan

9-0ish by Justice Alito

Thomas dissents in part, concurs in part, and concurs in the judgement. And like he loves to do, he cites his previous dissents along with something by Scalia.

Quote:

---

(1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property's fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.

This was a challenge under both the Fifth Amendment's takings clause (which bars the government from taking private property for public use without paying "just compensation") and the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines. It arose when the state foreclosed on a house for failure to pay taxes and sold it for $76,000. The former homeowner got the difference between the taxes he owed ($2200) and the sale price, but then the buyer turned around and sold it again for much more. The former owner argued that he was entitled to the difference between the second sale price (which he says was the fair market value) and the taxes that he owed.

---

I could swear they had a case previously for the exact same thing, not more than a year or two ago. Will have to go back and look.

---

The ruling below:

Quote:

---

1. The proper baseline for measuring "just compensation" following a tax sale is the auction sale price, not the property's hypothetical fair market value, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of the country's history of tax sales. Pp. 411.
(a) For hundreds of years, English and American law have allowed the seizure and sale of property as a tax-collection method, provided that the government return any surplus proceeds to the debtor. Federal statutes from the early days of the Republic applied this rule, as did this Court's precedents. United States v. Taylor, 104 U. S. 216; United States v. Lawton, 110 U. S. 146; Nelson v. City of New York, 352 U. S. 103; BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation, 511 U. S. 531. Pp. 46.
(b) Neither history nor precedent supports Pung's contrary argument. Pung's reliance on a recent concurrence by a Justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan interpreting the State Constitution does not shed much light on the Takings Clause's meaning, see Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, 505 Mich. 429, 485522, 952 N. W. 2d 434, 466487 (Viviano, J., concurring). Cases about the seizure of multiple pieces of property do not help him because the County sold just one parcel of Pung's real property, and Pung does not argue that the parcel could have been subdivided. Eminent-domain cases do not help him either because, even in that context, this Court has "refused to designate market value as the sole measure of just compensation," United States v. 564.54 Acres of Monroe and Pike County Land, 441 U. S. 506, 512. Fair market value is not an appropriate measure of just compensation in this context because owners can generally avoid tax sales.
Pung's fair-market-value theory would impose unprecedented burdens on jurisdictions that wish to collect unpaid taxes and might well make tax sales impractical. Under Pung's rule, a tax sale would often net the government a loss, paid out to the delinquent taxpayer himself, rendering tax sales infeasible as a debt-collection mechanism. That Pung's novel interpretation of the Takings Clause would eliminate this longstanding practice is strong evidence that his interpretation is incorrect. Pp. 610.
(c) The Court will not resolve any of Pung's newfound contentions that the procedure the County followed in seizing and selling his property was unfair. The Sixth Circuit may address on remand any such arguments properly preserved in that court. Pp. 1011.
2. The Court rejects Pung's argument that the County violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause by failing to compensate him for his property's fair market value. Forfeiture of property can be a "fin[e]" for purposes of the Eighth Amendment if it serves "in part to punish." Austin v. United States, 509 U. S. 602, 610. Pung lacks precedent or historical evidence suggesting that a tax sale which is fairly conducted in light of our Nation's history would violate the Eighth Amendment. In addition, imposing Pung's fair-market-value rule under the Eighth Amendment would entail the same drastic consequences as imposing the rule under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 1112.

Vacated and remanded.

Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined except as to Part IIB. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch and Jackson, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch, J., joined except as to n. 1.

---

And the arguments are so inconsistent it must be coming from two different people

Supreme Court Bingo! Predictions worth what you pay for:
Trump v. Slaughter - Roberts
NRSC v. FEC - Alito
Trans Athlete Cases (2x) -Kavanaugh
Wolford v. Lopez - Barrett
Trump v. Cook - Roberts
Watson v. RNC - Alito
Mullin v. Al Otro - Thomas
Trump v. Barbara - Roberts
Monsanto…

— Eric W. (@EWess92) June 23, 2026