Last Month at the Supreme Court® | November 2026

Last Month at the Supreme Court® returns for its fourth season! Throughout the 2026 Term, Dykema’s Appellate and Critical Motions team will continue tracking the Court’s most significant decisions, oral arguments, and certiorari grants to provide timely, practical analyses of what those developments mean for our clients, their businesses, and their industries. Our coverage will emphasize not only the legal questions before the Court, but also their practical implications for litigation strategy, regulatory obligations, business operations, and enterprise risk.

The November 2026 edition opens the new Term with two cases that illustrate how the Court’s resolution of seemingly narrow legal questions can have far-reaching consequences for constitutional litigation and consumer privacy class actions. This month, we examine and preview:

• Whether a person who subscribes to a company’s non-video services qualifies as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act, an issue that could substantially affect the scope of privacy class action litigation brought against businesses offering online video content; and
• Whether plaintiffs challenging facially race-neutral public school admissions policies under the Equal Protection Clause must demonstrate a disparate impact on the allegedly disadvantaged racial group, and what that requirement could mean for future challenges to admissions criteria.

Both cases present distinct questions, but each could significantly influence the viability of future litigation. The Court’s answers will determine who may bring privacy claims arising from the disclosure of online video-viewing information and who may pursue constitutional challenges to public school admissions policies.

Take a few moments to read—or listen to—our summaries for an accessible examination of the issues before the Court and their potential implications for the industries and institutions Dykema serves.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Mark Magyar, Kyle Asher, Andrew VanEgmond, Monika Harris, David Ter-Petrosyan, Sadie Betting, Michael Mezey, or Jake Schultz.

---

Supreme Court Considers Scope of the Video Privacy Protection Act

On October 14, 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Salazar v. Paramount Global (No. 25-459), a case considering who qualifies as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). Although enacted in 1988 to protect the privacy of video-rental records, the VPPA has become an increasingly prominent vehicle for privacy class actions challenging the disclosure of online video-viewing information. Plaintiffs have invoked the decades-old statute against modern websites and digital platforms, often alleging that tracking technologies improperly transmit users’ viewing information to third parties. In Salazar, the Court is considering whether the phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider” used in the VPPA’s definition of “consumer” “refers to all of a video tape service provider’s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services.” The answer could substantially affect which website users may sue under the statute—and, correspondingly, the exposure of businesses that offer video content alongside other products or services.

Read the full synopsis here.

---

Grant Alert

Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education (No. 26-12)

On October 19, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that will address what plaintiffs must allege to pursue an Equal Protection challenge to facially race-neutral public school admissions policies. Specifically, the Court will consider how disparate impact must be measured when plaintiffs contend that an admissions policy was designed to disadvantage applicants on the basis of race.

Read the full synopsis here.