Last Month at the Supreme Court® | May-June 2026

Greetings from Dykema’s Appellate and Critical Motions Practice.

This combined edition of Last Month at the Supreme Court^®marks our final publication for the October Term 2025—a season that produced consequential decisions across multiple disciplines impacting the business community, while also setting the stage for another significant docket in the forthcoming October Term 2026.

This edition features decision alerts on several of the Term’s major opinions, including cases addressing the scope of presidential (executive) authority, the continuing vitality of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, just compensation in tax sale foreclosures, federal jurisdiction over arbitration proceedings, removal jurisdiction, freight broker preemption under the FAAAA, Title IX, Fourth Amendment limits on geofence warrants, transgender participation in school athletics, birthright citizenship, and the Court’s continuing development of administrative law. We also preview several newly granted cases that the Court will hear next Term, including disputes involving environmental permitting, federal pleading requirements, religious liberty, and employment discrimination under Title IX.

What is not included are any retirement announcements. That’s because there were none. Despite reports in the press that Justice Samuel Alito had announced his retirement from the Court on the last day before the summer recess, those reports were confirmed to be false. All nine Justices are expected to return to the Court to hear the new roster of cases, following the summer recess.

Whether you are tracking legal developments that may affect your organization today or planning for those on the horizon, our concise case summaries highlight the decisions and emerging issues most likely to influence business operations, compliance, litigation risk, and strategic decision-making.

As always, thank you for reading (or listening to) Last Month at the Supreme Court^®. We look forward to continuing to bring you timely, business-centered analysis of the Court’s most important decisions and developments when the October 2026 Term begins.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Andrew VanEgmond, Monika Harris, Ryan VanOver, David Ter-Petrosyan, or Sadie Betting.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds Negligent Hiring Claims Fall Within the FAAAA’s Safety Exception

As signaled in Dykema’s March 2026 edition, Montgomery v. Caribe Transport, II (No. 24-1238) arises from a highway accident in which Petitioner Montgomery was struck by a vehicle operated by an employee of Respondent Caribe Transport II, LLC, which had been selected by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., a freight broker that arranged the shipment. The case asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) preempts common law negligent selection claims against freight brokers.

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds Federal Courts Retain Jurisdiction to Confirm or Vacate Arbitration Awards After Staying Litigation Under the FAA

On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties (No. 25-83) that a federal court that stays a case pending arbitration under § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting arbitration award, even if the post-arbitration motions would not independently satisfy federal subject matter jurisdiction. Justice Sotomayor authored the Court’s unanimous opinion. The decision clarifies that a stay under § 3 suspends—rather than terminates—the federal action, allowing the district court to supervise the arbitration through its conclusion.

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds Just Compensation in Tax Sale Foreclosures is Properly Measured by Auction Sale Price and Not Fair Market Value

On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Pung v. Isabella County (No. 25-95) that when the government sells a property in a tax auction to collect unpaid taxes, the Fifth Amendment generally measures “just compensation” by the amount realized at the tax sale auction, not the property’s fair market value—so long as the auction was fairly conducted in light of the nation’s historical tax sale practices. The decision rejects a significant expansion of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause that could have required governments to compensate former property owners based on appraised market value rather than the auction sales price. At the same time, the Court emphasized that the Constitution still requires a fair auction process and left open what that requirement may entail. The Court, therefore, rejected Petitioner’s argument that he was constitutionally entitled to recover the difference between the auction price and the home’s alleged market value. Because the lower courts may not have fully considered whether the auction procedures used in this case were fair, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds “Last-Mile” Delivery Drivers May Qualify for the Federal Arbitration Act’s Transportation Worker Exemption

On May 28, 2026, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock (No. 24–935) that a worker may qualify for the transportation worker exemption in § 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) even if the worker never personally crosses state lines or transports goods across state borders. In the opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the Court concluded that the relevant inquiry is not whether the worker’s own route is interstate, but whether the worker plays a direct and necessary role in the interstate movement of goods.

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies That Rooker-Feldman Can Bar Federal Court Review of Non-Final State Court Judgments

On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical Systems, concluding that the long-maligned Rooker-Feldman doctrine strictly bars a federal court collateral attack on a state court judgment, even when that judgment remains subject to further review in the state’s appellate courts. The Court resolved a circuit split over when the doctrine attaches and reaffirmed that litigants generally cannot use a federal district court as an alternative forum to challenge an adverse state court judgment while state appellate proceedings remain available. Although the Court described its holding as a narrow application of existing precedent, the decision reinforces the doctrine’s continued vitality.

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Equitable Tolling to Extend 30-Day Deadline to Remove to Federal Court

The Supreme Court recently decided Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (No. 24-783), holding that the equitable tolling doctrine cannot be invoked to extend the 30-day deadline for removing a case from state to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. The decision clarifies the finality of removal decisions and reinforces the availability of federal jurisdiction based on the procedural framework Congress enacted—not equitable exceptions fashioned by the courts.

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Strikes Down Concealed Carry Firearm Ban

In Wolford v. Lopez (24-1046), the Supreme Court addressed whether a state may prohibit carrying firearms on others’ private property open to the public without the owners’ permission. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Hawaii violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by prohibiting individuals licensed to carry concealed handguns from doing so without first receiving the property owner’s express authorization. Justice Alito authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Additionally, Justice Barrett filed a concurrence, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch as to Part II-B. Justice Kagan dissented, and Justice Jackson filed a separate dissent joined by Justice Sotomayor.

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds Acquisition of Google Location History Through a Geofence Warrant Constitutes a Fourth Amendment Search

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held 6–3 in Chatrie v. United States (No. 25-112) that law enforcement’s acquisition of Google Location History through a geofence warrant constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search.” Importantly, however, the Court did not hold that geofence warrants are categorically unconstitutional. Instead, after concluding that the Government conducted a Fourth Amendment search, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the particular warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements.

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds the Fourteenth Amendment Guarantees Birthright Citizenship

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365) that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett. Justice Jackson filed a separate concurrence, joined in part by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissent, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. In other words, the Court decided the case by both a 6-3 and a 5-4 margin, depending on the specific legal grounds: 5-4 on the core constitutional question of whether the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children of non-citizens; 6-3 on whether the executive order violated federal (statutory) law, with Justice Kavanaugh joining the constitutional majority to invalidate the President’s policy on statutory grounds.

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds Statutory Removal Protections Remain Judicially Enforceable Pending Review of Presidential Removal Decisions

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Cook (No. 25A312) that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook may remain in office pending litigation challenging her removal proceedings. By a 5–4 vote, the Court declined to stay a preliminary injunction preserving Cook’s position, concluding that the government had not demonstrated that extraordinary relief was warranted before the merits of the dispute could be fully litigated. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion. 

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Overrules 90-Year-Old Precedent and Holds President Can Remove Members of Federal Trade Commission

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Trump v. Slaughter (No. 25-332) that statutory restrictions limiting the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) violate Article II of the Constitution. By a 6–3 vote, the Court overruled its nearly ninety-year-old decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, concluding that Congress may not insulate FTC Commissioners from presidential removal through a “for-cause” removal provision. Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in full and by Justice Thomas except as to Part III. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. The decision marks one of the Court’s most significant separation of powers rulings in decades, substantially expanding presidential control over independent executive agencies while narrowing the constitutional foundation for statutory removal protections.

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Upholds State Laws Governing Participation on Women’s and Girls’ Athletic Teams Based on Biological Sex

On June 30, 2026, the final day opinions in argued cases for the October 2025 Term were issued, the Court held in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (No. 24-43) and Little v. Hecox (No. 24-38) that state laws limiting participation on women’s and girls’ athletic teams based on biological sex do not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, and Justice Jackson filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. While some have reported the Court’s decision as a 6-3 split, that is not technically accurate. All nine Justices unanimously decided that the state laws barring transgender women and girls from female sports teams did not violate Title IX. The Court concluded that the term “sex” in Title IX refers to biological sex and that its implementing regulations allow schools to maintain separate teams for biological males and females. While the agreement on Title IX was unanimous, the Justices split 6-3 regarding the Constitution, with the majority ruling that the bans also did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Read the full synopsis here.