Supreme Court Roundup: Decisions, Emergency Actions, and New Grants

Supreme Court Roundup: Decisions, Emergency Actions, and New Grants

In this episode, we analyze the Supreme Court's recent activities across three key areas:

• Six unanimous decisions released on June 5th, 2025
• Two significant emergency docket interventions involving DOGE
• Three major cases granted certiorari via June 6th, 2025 Order

June 5, 2025 Unanimous Decisions

• Remarkable consensus: 5 unanimous decisions, 1 8-1 dismissal
• Strategic clearing of non-controversial cases with 30 contentious cases pending
• Justice Thomas's concurrences in 5 of 6 cases challenging judge-made doctrines
• Heavy focus on procedural rules as proxies for deeper policy debates

Emergency Docket Actions

1. U.S. DOGE Service v. CREW: Court limits discovery of internal executive communications

• Court orders narrowing of discovery rather than outright prohibition
• Decision based on separation of powers principles
• Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented

2. Social Security Administration v. AFSCME: Court allows DOGE access to sensitive SSA records

• Justice Jackson's forceful dissent highlighting privacy concerns
• Lower courts' compromise solution rejected by majority
• Concerns about disclosure of personal data without legal determination

Certiorari Grants

1. Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton | Case No. 24-808

• Docket Link: Here
• Question Presented: Whether a motion to vacate a void judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) must be filed within a "reasonable time"
• Key Facts: Coney Island claims improper service six years after default judgment
• Petitioner's Argument: Void judgments are legal nullities from the start; no time limit should apply
• Respondent's Argument: Rule 60(c)(1) explicitly requires "reasonable time" with no exceptions
• Stakes: Balance between jurisdictional principles and need for legal finality

2. Rutherford v. United States | Case No. 24-820 (Consolidated with Carter v. United States | Case No. 24-860)

• Docket Link: Here
• Question Presented: Whether the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority in allowing courts to consider non-retroactive changes in law as "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for sentence reduction
• Key Fact: Carter received 70-year sentence under pre-First Step Act "stacking" provisions that would result in much shorter sentence today
• Petitioner's Argument: Commission has broad authority to define "extraordinary and compelling reasons"; gross disparities qualify
• Government's Argument: Commission can't circumvent Congress's decision not to make First Step Act retroactive
• Stakes: Potential relief for hundreds of federal prisoners serving lengthy "stacked" sentences

3. Hamm v. Smith | Case No. 24-872

• Docket Link: Here
• Question Presented: How courts should apply the clinical definition of intellectual disability when all IQ scores are above 70
• Key Fact: Smith has five IQ scores (75, 74, 72, 78, 74) all above 70 but significant adaptive deficits
• Petitioner's Argument: Multiple IQ scores above 70 should preclude intellectual disability finding; states should be able to require proof of IQ ≤70
• Respondent's Argument: Supreme Court precedent requires considering standard error of measurement and adaptive functioning when scores are in 70-75 range
• Stakes: Implementation of Atkins prohibition on executing intellectually disabled individuals; states' authority to define intellectual disability criteria

Support the Podcast

If you found this analysis helpful, please subscribe, rate, and share this podcast. Your support helps us continue providing in-depth Supreme Court coverage.