Legal Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling on Universal Injunctions
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 65 -The Power of Interpretation: Constitutional Meaning in the Modern World
Federal Court Strikes Down FDA Rule on LDTs - Thought Leaders in Health Law®
Episode 18 | Unpacking the Packing: A Perspective on the Efforts to Expand the Supreme Court
A federal judge has blocked the Trump Administration from ending TPS for Haiti months earlier than initially planned under the 2024 government extension. On June 27, 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary...more
On June 23, 2025, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion by President Donald J. Trump and other officials (“Defendants”) to stay his order reinstating three Democratic...more
In Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court addressed three emergency applications challenging the use of universal injunctions that bar enforcement of federal action across the country. The case concerned the entry of a temporary...more
On June 27, 2025, in a 6-3 opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), that federal courts lack the power to issue “universal injunctions,” a...more
The United States Supreme Court issued a decision that curtailed the practice of “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions and may have a significant impact for individuals and organizations that seek redress from the courts,...more
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal courts lack the authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789. In so ruling, the Court granted the...more
On Friday, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that the removal of Democratic Commissioners from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) without cause was unlawful....more
“Equal is not fair, and fair is not equal. Equal is obtainable but fair is not.” The Montgomery County Circuit Court overseeing the launch of Alabama’s medical cannabis program has an interesting dilemma on its hands. It...more
In 24 hours, two federal courts injected significant uncertainty into the viability of tariffs implemented by President Trump under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)....more
In April 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided Capen v. Campbell, a case arising from a challenge to Massachusetts’ ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The court affirmed a district...more
California Fish and Game Code Section 5937 has long been a subject of scholarly debate with uncertainty in its application. In a published opinion filed on April 2, 2025, California’s Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate...more
On April 2, 2025, California’s Fifth Appellate District issued a decision in Bring Back the Kern v. City of Bakersfield (April 2, 2025, F087487) (2025 WL 98443). The Court held the “self-executing” reasonableness requirement...more
On April 2, 2025, the Court of Appeal for California’s Fifth Appellate District issued its decision in Bring Back the Kern v. City of Bakersfield, 2025 S.O.S. 909. That case held that courts must apply the reasonableness...more
Holtzman Vogel attorneys wrote on the Supreme Court's landmark Loper Bright decision earlier this month. The Court overruled its 1984 decision in Chevron v. NRDC that introduced the so-called "Chevron deference" principle...more