John Kruzel

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal limits on coordinated campaign spending by political parties and candidates violate the First Amendment. Donald Trump praised the decision as a major victory for Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections. The ruling benefits Republican committees, which held roughly $256 million in cash at the end of May compared with about $126 million for Democratic committees, which also carried more than $18 million in debt. It continues the conservative-majority Court’s broader rollback of campaign-finance restrictions since 2010.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and their candidates violate the First Amendment, siding with JD Vance and other Republican challengers. Donald Trump praised the decision as a major Republican victory. The ruling removes spending caps at a time when Republican national committees hold more than twice as much cash as their Democratic counterparts ahead of the midterm elections. It continues the Court’s broader dismantling of campaign-finance restrictions and follows other election-related decisions involving mail-in ballots and voting-district maps.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that police use of a geofence warrant to obtain cellphone location data constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, overturning a lower-court decision against Virginia defendant Okello Chatrie. The justices remanded the case for further analysis rather than deciding whether the evidence from the warrant must be excluded. The warrant led investigators to Google location data for 19 people near a 2019 credit-union robbery, including Chatrie, whose conviction and nearly 12-year sentence were supported by additional evidence found at residences linked to him.

The U.S. Supreme Court will review the Trump administration’s appeal over whether certain noncitizens convicted of serious crimes may be detained indefinitely without bond hearings. The case involves two lawful permanent residents, G.M. and Carol Black, whose prolonged detention was found by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to require hearings under the Fifth Amendment’s due-process guarantee. The administration argues that federal immigration law permits mandatory detention, while the American Civil Liberties Union contends that detainees must be given an opportunity to demonstrate they are not flight risks or dangers to the community. The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments during its next term; Black’s attorney argues that his case may be moot because he and his wife left the United States.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the FCC may initially impose financial penalties through its in-house proceedings without violating carriers’ constitutional right to a jury trial. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that FCC forfeiture orders do not finally determine legal obligations and that companies can challenge the penalties in court. The decision rejected challenges by AT&T and Verizon to fines stemming from allegations that carriers sold customer-location data without consent. The ruling also resolved a split between federal appeals courts and followed a separate decision limiting some agency in-house enforcement powers.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Eli Lilly’s constitutional challenge to the False Claims Act, leaving intact a $183 million judgment arising from allegations that the drugmaker concealed retroactive price increases and underpaid Medicaid rebates. The case was brought by lawyer and pharmacist Ronald Streck under the law’s qui tam provisions, which allow private individuals to sue on the federal government’s behalf. Lilly argued that these provisions improperly delegate executive power to private citizens, but lower courts upheld the jury verdict. The Justice Department has recovered more than $330 million in the case, according to government data.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether a geofence warrant used to identify Okello Chatrie as the suspect in a 2019 Virginia credit-union robbery violated the Fourth Amendment. Investigators obtained location data from Google for 19 devices near the crime scene and later linked Chatrie to the robbery, recovering demand notes, a pistol, and nearly $100,000. Chatrie argues that geofence warrants are unconstitutional dragnet searches, while the Trump administration maintains that users who enabled Google Location History had reduced privacy expectations and that investigators had probable cause. A lower-court judge found the warrant unconstitutional but allowed the evidence under the good-faith exception. The Supreme Court declined to consider the evidence-suppression issue and is expected to rule on the constitutional question by the end of June.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Melynda Vincent’s challenge to the federal law barring people with serious felony convictions from possessing firearms. Vincent lost her gun rights after a 2008 Utah bank-fraud conviction, and lower courts upheld the restriction despite arguments based on the Court’s expansive 2022 Second Amendment ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Trump administration supported dismissing the case while pursuing authority for Attorney General Pam Bondi to restore gun rights for eligible nonviolent felons. The decision leaves the restriction in place as the Court continues to consider other major firearms cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing the Trump administration’s appeal over whether President Donald Trump can remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Trump cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations, which Cook denies, while lower courts found that her removal without notice or a hearing likely violated due process and may not satisfy the Federal Reserve Act’s requirement of removal for cause. The case could determine whether the Fed remains protected from direct presidential control, particularly as Trump pressures the central bank to cut interest rates and criticizes Chair Jerome Powell. A ruling in Trump’s favor could significantly weaken the Fed’s independence and affect its ability to set monetary policy without political interference.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide major cases by the end of its term, including challenges to Donald Trump’s tariffs and attempts to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Other cases concern Colorado’s ban on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy, restrictions on transgender athletes, voting maps in Louisiana, gun-carrying rules in Hawaii, firearm possession by illegal drug users, campaign-finance limits, crisis pregnancy centers, religious rights in prisons, the execution of an intellectually disabled Alabama prisoner, and compensation claims involving property seized by Cuba.

The U.S. Supreme Court will review the Trump administration’s challenge to a lower-court ruling that found the federal ban on firearm possession by illegal drug users largely incompatible with the Second Amendment. The case concerns Ali Hemani, whose gun charge was dismissed by the Fifth Circuit after it found no historical basis for disarming a sober person not under the influence. The Justice Department is asking the justices to permit prosecutions of habitual drug users who possess firearms. The ruling, expected by the end of June, could affect similar cases, including Hunter Biden’s 2023 conviction under the same statute, although Joe Biden later pardoned his son.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a Massachusetts student who challenged his school’s decision to bar him from wearing a T-shirt stating “There are only two genders.” The ruling leaves in place decisions by a federal district judge and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which found the restriction reasonable under the Tinker standard for limiting student speech that could substantially disrupt school activities. School officials cited concerns about the impact of the message on transgender and gender-nonconforming students, including students who had experienced severe mental-health struggles. The case was brought by the student and his family with representation from Alliance Defending Freedom, while the broader dispute takes place amid intensified U.S. political and legal battles over transgender rights.