Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger (Decided January 15, 2025)In Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court addressed whether a federal court retains supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367 when a plaintiff amends their complaint to remove all federal claims after a case is removed to federal court.The case arose after Wullschleger sued Royal Canin in state court, asserting both federal and state claims. Following removal to federal court, Wullschleger amended her complaint, eliminating the federal claims and seeking remand to state court. The Court held that when federal claims are removed from an amended complaint, federal courts lose supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, requiring remand to state court. Justice Kagan, writing for a unanimous Court, emphasized that federal jurisdiction must be assessed based on the operative complaint.Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (Decided December 10, 2024)In Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court addressed whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review the revocation of a previously approved visa petition under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The case involved Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, whose petition for her noncitizen spouse was revoked by USCIS upon suspicion of a prior sham marriage. The agency cited its authority under 8 U.S.C. §1155 to revoke approvals “for good and sufficient cause.”The Court unanimously held that the Secretary of Homeland Security’s revocation of a visa petition is a discretionary action falling under §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which precludes judicial review of such agency decisions. Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, emphasized that the broad statutory language granting discretion to revoke a visa petition reflects clear congressional intent to shield these decisions from court oversight.This ruling underscores Congress' authority to limit procedural protections in immigration matters when decisions are entrusted to agency discretion. Justice Jackson writing for a unanimous Court. Read by RJ Dieken.

Florida and Texas both enacted laws regulating social media companies and other online platforms.  Netchoice alleges a facial challenge to the statutes under the First Amendment.  Held: both judgments (of the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits) are vacated, as neither court conducted a proper analysis to the facial challenges under the First Amendment to these two laws.Read by Jeff Barnum. 

Trump v. United StatesA federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of the election results. Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment’s allegations fell within the core of his official duties. The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts. Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined in full, and in which BARRETT, J., joined except as to Part III–C. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.Read by RJ Dieken.