President Donald Trump has no plans to delay additional tariffs on India that are set to take effect Wednesday, according to a White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the administration’s plans.
The new levies — imposed, in part, to pressure Russia to end its war on Ukraine by punishing one of its largest oil buyers — will raise the country’s tariff rate to 50 percent and are likely to inflame tensions between the world’s two largest democracies. They are set to take effect despite the hope among some in Trump’s orbit that last week’s appointment of Sergio Gor to be the next ambassador to India was a sign of an improving relationship between the two countries.
Syed Akbaruddin, India’s former ambassador to the United Nations, said the new levies are being seen in India as “more than a trade dispute.”
“Their imposition is viewed as a blow to confidence in the India–U.S. partnership,” Akbaruddin said. “If left unchecked, these could erode two decades of strategic convergence.”
The U.S. hit India with a 25 percent tariff after the two countries failed to reach an initial trade agreement this summer, and relations worsened this month after Trump signed an executive order slapping an additional 25 percent levy over the country’s purchases of Russian oil. India is the second-largest purchaser of Russian oil behind China — but the Trump administration opted not to move forward with so-called secondary sanctions on the latter country amid a broader tariff denté, which expires in November.
While some proponents of the U.S.-India relationship had hoped Trump would delay the imposition of the Russian oil tariffs, the administration signaled it would make good on the threat to hike tariffs on Monday when U.S. Customs and Border Protection uploaded a draft notice with guidance for importers, clarifying its plan for the additional 25 percent tariff hike.
The additional tariffs are souring a once positive relationship between the two world leaders — who have called each other friends — and come as efforts to coordinate a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have stalled following a recent meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska.
The Indians, meanwhile, have shown little sign of budging on their Russian oil purchases, which the government has framed as purely an economic decision.
Now, India’s 50 percent tariff rate will be nearly as high as the 55 percent levy Chinese goods face.
Mark Linscott, a former negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office who was involved in negotiations with India during Trump’s first administration, described the new tariffs as “unfortunate.”
“It’s hard to predict how things might unfold from here, but it’s clearly a low moment now,” Linscott said.
A White House official, granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the relationship between the two countries, said, they “don’t think this is necessarily the end of the relationship between the two countries.”
The tariff-fueled rift with India may have geopolitical implications that go beyond the U.S.-India relationship. For much of this century, U.S. presidents have sought to pull New Delhi into closer strategic ties — and pry it away from its traditional relations with Moscow — through India’s membership in the China-countering group known as the Quad, which also includes Australia, Japan and the United States.
Those efforts appeared to be bearing fruit as recently as January following a meeting in Washington with top diplomats from Quad countries when India’s Foreign Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar told reporters that New Delhi was willing to nudge the grouping toward a greater defense and security focus. That initiative is likely dead as long as the Trump administration’s tariff punishment continues.
The Indian embassy in Washington declined to comment, but India’s Ministry of External Affairs has previously called the tariffs “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable,” and said that India “will take all necessary steps to protect its national interests.”
In a modest concession to Washington, Indian refiners plan to trim their purchases of Russian crude in the coming weeks, according to reporting from Bloomberg. But it’s not clear if a slight reduction will move the needle for the Trump administration, and the country has no plans to sever its deep financial ties with Moscow.
Still, the White House has maintained that it views the oil purchases as supporting the war in Russia, with Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro in a recent Financial Times op-ed calling it “profiteering by India’s Big Oil lobby.” Navarro has repeatedly defended the tariff hike being targeted specifically on India instead of China, pointing out that tariffs on some Chinese goods are already as high as 50 percent.
India was one of the first countries to begin trade talks with the U.S., with Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreeing during a White House meeting in February to more than double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030.
Vice President JD Vance announced during a trip to India in April that the countries had finalized “terms of reference” for negotiations, and Trump teased for weeks in July that a trade agreement with India was close. The fact that the country did not receive one of Trump’s July tariff letters was widely seen as a good sign.
That appeared to fall apart when Trump posted on Truth Social in late July “ALL THINGS NOT GOOD!” with India, especially with the country’s relationship to Russia.
“Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The new tariffs threaten to push India closer to not only Russia but China and other members of the so-called BRICS group of emerging economies that Trump has in recent weeks railed against.
Still, proponents of the U.S.-India relationship haven’t given up hope. Trump and Modi could meet at the UN General Assembly in New York next month, which could give the men a chance to hash out their differences in person.
“Despite the current negative commentary in India about the bilateral relationship, I believe that the Indian government would like to try to work things out — and I think the Trump administration has the same desire,” said Kenneth Juster, who served as U.S. ambassador to India during the first Trump administration. “While the current tariffs may be in effect for several weeks, I hope that the two leaders will meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in late September and get the relationship back on track.”
Phelim Kine and Daniel Desrochers contributed to this report.
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/chrTp5HLnuy3TNMTPQf8lXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Government contractors’ defenses, election challenges, and intellectual disability in capital cases" title="Government contractors’ defenses, election challenges, and intellectual disability in capital cases"> <p><em>The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available </em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/#relists_explained"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p> <p>The Supreme Court is making good progress in sorting through the current relists. This week it disposed of four. It was good news for the petitioner in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/fernandez-v-united-states/"><em>Fernandez v. United States</em></a>, involving the scope of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3582">a statute that gives judges discretion to reduce criminal sentences</a> for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” The court will consider whether those “extraordinary and compelling reasons” include doubt about guilt that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court is now holding a second relisted petition raising a similar issue, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/elliott-v-united-states/"><em>Elliott v. United States</em></a>, pending disposition in <em>Fernandez</em>.</p> <p>The Supreme Court declined review in 15-time relist <em>Apache Stronghold v. United States</em>, however, which challenged a federal land transfer that would facilitate copper mining at Oak Flat, a site sacred to the Western Apache. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-291_5i26.pdf">dissented from the denial</a>, emphasizing that the planned mining operations would permanently destroy a central place of worship, preventing the Apaches from practicing essential religious ceremonies that cannot occur elsewhere. </p> <p>The court also denied review in 10-time relist <em>L.M. v. Middleborough</em>, involving a Massachusetts middle-school student who was barred from wearing to school a shirt stating “There Are Only Two Genders.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the school’s decision, finding no First Amendment violation. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Thomas, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-410_o75p.pdf">dissented from the denial of cert</a>, arguing that the school engaged in viewpoint discrimination by promoting gender fluidity while silencing opposing views. Thomas, ever the originalist, also wrote a separate opinion that reiterated his skepticism of the seminal student-speech case <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/"><em>Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District</em></a>, yet emphasized that even under <em>Tinker</em>, the school’s actions were unjustified. </p> <p>That brings us to this week’s conference, in which there are 143 petitions and applications on the Supreme Court’s docket. Four of these are newly relisted cases. </p> <p><strong>Government contractors’ defenses to torts </strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/the-geo-group-inc-v-menocal/"><em>The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal</em></a> arises from a class action brought by former immigration detainees at a private detention facility in Aurora, Colorado, operated by The GEO Group, Inc. under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The plaintiffs claim that GEO required detainees to clean common areas under threat of punishment – starting with the loss of TV and telephone privileges – potentially including solitary confinement. According to the plaintiffs, there was also a separate voluntary work program under which detainees could do various jobs, but for which they were paid just $1 per day. </p> <p>The class action alleged violations of the <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-2000-title18-section1589&num=0&edition=2000">Trafficking Victims Protection Act</a> and Colorado common law prohibitions against unjust enrichment. GEO asserted that it had derivative sovereign immunity under the 1940 Supreme Court case <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/309/18/"><em>Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co.</em></a>, arguing that it was merely executing government directives and was thus immune from suit. But the district court denied GEO at summary judgment, holding that the challenged policies were not required by the ICE contract. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit subsequently dismissed GEO’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that denial of <em>Yearsley</em> immunity is not an immediately appealable collateral order.</p> <p>GEO now seeks Supreme Court review, arguing that the decision deepens a 5-3 circuit split on whether <em>Yearsley</em>-based claims of derivative sovereign immunity can be reviewed before final judgment. GEO’s cert petition insists that denying immediate review frustrates the very purpose of immunity: to avoid litigation burdens in the first place. Supporting briefs from groups including the Professional Services Council warn the lower court’s ruling may chill contractor participation in federal programs. But the former detainees counter that <em>Yearsley</em> is merely a merits defense – not an immunity from suit – and contend the issue is too fact-bound for interlocutory appeal. </p> <p>According to GEO, three new courts of appeals have weighed in since the Supreme Court last considered the issue in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/caci-premier-technology-inc-v-al-shimari/"><em>CACI Premier Technology v. al Shimari</em></a>. Although the court denied review of <em>CACI </em>in 2021, in that case the government – in response to the court’s invitation – <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-648/151310/20200826130104385_CACI%20v%20Al-Shimari.pdf">argued that Supreme Court review is warranted</a>, even though it takes the view that <em>Yearsley</em> immunity is not immediately appealable. Perhaps the time for review has finally arrived. </p> <p><strong>Immunity of federal contractors </strong></p> <p>In 2016, an Afghan national working under Fluor Corporation at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, employed pursuant to a Pentagon program encouraging the employment of Afghan citizens, built an explosive vest while unsupervised. He then detonated it, grievously injuring U.S. Army Specialist Winston Hencely. Hencely sued Fluor in tort, alleging negligent hiring, supervision, and retention under South Carolina law, as well as third-party contract claims. </p> <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21-1994/21-1994-2024-10-30.pdf?ts=1730311221">affirmed</a> the district court’s dismissal of the case, holding that the tort claims were barred by a form of federal preemption based on the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2680">“combatant activities” exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act</a>. Although the appeals court recognized this provision normally bars claims only against the federal government, it determined this applied to claims against Fluor as a contractor since Fluor was “integrated into” combat operations and was working under the command of the military.</p> <p>In <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hencely-v-fluor-corporation/">Hencely v. Fluor Corporation</a></em>, Hencely seeks Supreme Court review to resolve whether federal contractors enjoy immunity from state-law tort suits because they are integrated into combat operations, even when, as alleged here, they violate military orders and contractual duties. Hencely contends the 4th Circuit applied a new preemption theory unmoored from the FTCA’s text or Supreme Court precedent, extending the 1988 Supreme Court decision <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/500/"><em>Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation</em></a>, which immunized government contractors from liability under certain circumstances, beyond recognition. A brief from <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-924/354334/20250328171117618_Hencely%20v.%20Fluor%20Brief%20States%20Amicus.pdf">West Virginia and eleven other states</a> supporting Hencely echoes that concern, contending the ruling “rewrote the statute” to provide sweeping immunity for private contractors. Fluor counters that the ruling <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-924/357547/20250428124625242_24-924%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf">merely applies settled <em>Boyle</em> principles</a> to war-zone logistics and implicates no true circuit split. If the court wants to revisit <em>Boyle</em> or cabin the FTCA’s combat-zone carve-out, this could be a case to watch.</p> <p><strong>Standing in election law cases</strong></p> <p><em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/bost-v-illinois-state-board-of-elections/">Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections</a> </em>features a constitutional challenge to an Illinois law requiring the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive up to two weeks after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked (or certified) by Election Day. Representative Michael Bost, R-Ill., and two former presidential electors sued under the Constitution’s elections and electors clauses, arguing that the extended ballot receipt deadline unlawfully extends federal election timing beyond what 2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1 allow. They also invoked candidate-specific injuries, including campaign resource burdens and the alleged dilution of the “accurate vote tally.” </p> <p>But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit didn’t buy it. In an <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/23-2644/23-2644-2024-08-21.pdf?ts=1724257821">opinion</a> by Judge John Lee, the court dismissed for lack of standing, stating the harm to the plaintiffs as voters claiming their votes were diluted by late-returned ballots were the sort of “generalized grievances” that failed to distinguish these plaintiffs from anyone else in Illinois. A majority of the 7th Circuit also rejected Bost’s claims as a candidate, declaring it speculative that late-received votes made any difference. Judge Michael Scudder dissented in part, saying that Bost was injured as a candidate because the law increased his campaign costs by requiring him to monitor late-arriving votes. </p> <p>Bost argues that the 7th Circuit’s decision created a circuit split. In support of this, he points to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit’s decision in <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/20-3139/20-3139-2020-10-29.pdf?ts=1604012417"><em>Carson v. Simon</em> </a>(recognizing candidates’ interest in accurate vote tallies) and precedents from the U.S Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit like <a href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C06/06-50812-CV0.wpd.pdf"><em>Tex. Democratic Party v. Benkiser</em></a> and <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/24-60395/24-60395-2024-10-25.pdf?ts=1729899015"><em>Republican National Committee v. Wetzel</em></a><em> </em>(accepting campaign costs as a cognizable injury). </p> <p>Illinois contends that no such split exists, as those cases involved competitive injuries not alleged here. Supporting briefs, from groups including the Gun Owners of America, warn of a post-2020 trend tightening standing rules, risking unreviewable election law abuses. With around half the states adopting similar postmarked-by-Election-Day counting policies, this case may catch the court’s eye.</p> <p><strong>Intellectual disability in capital cases</strong></p> <p>Over two decades ago, the Supreme Court held in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/"><em>Atkins </em>v. <em>Virginia</em></a> that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of individuals who are intellectually disabled. In <a href="https://casetext.com/case/hall-v-florida-7"><em>Hall v. Florida</em></a> and <a href="https://casetext.com/case/moore-v-texas-12"><em>Moore v. Texas</em></a>, the court then adopted a definition of intellectual disability that looked to (among other factors) “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning,” and in particular, whether “the lower end of [the offender’s] [IQ] score range falls at or below 70.”</p> <p>Joseph Clifton Smith was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Durk Van Dam in order to steal his boots, tools, and $140. In repeated IQ tests, Smith scored 78, 75, 74, 74, and 72. On habeas review, the district court held that Smith was intellectually disabled, noting among other things that because his 72 score had a three-point margin of error, his IQ could be as low as 69. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit <a href="https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202114519.pdf">affirmed</a>. </p> <p>In 2023, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hamm-v-smith-3/">Alabama petitioned for review</a> and after a remarkable 21 relists, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-167_heim.pdf">summarily vacated the judgment</a> and remanded, perhaps simply kicking the can down the road. Specifically, the court said the 11th Circuit’s opinion could be read as granting review because a single one of Smith’s tests could have been as low as 69, and that interpretation “would suggest a <em>per se</em> rule that the lower end of the standard-error range for an offender’s lowest score is dispositive.” On the other hand, the court noted that the 11th Circuit also approvingly cited the district court’s determination that Smith’s lowest score was not an outlier when considered together with his higher scores. According to the court, “[t]hat analysis would suggest a more holistic approach to multiple IQ scores that considers the relevant evidence, including as appropriate any relevant expert testimony.” </p> <p>On remand, <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/14-10721/14-10721-2024-11-14.pdf?ts=1731630699">the 11th Circuit made clear</a> that the latter (“holistic”) reading was the correct one, and that it had not relied on a single IQ test. The appeals court wrote that “to be even more precise, based on the complete record, including any relevant expert testimony, we concluded that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings that Smith suffered from significantly subaverage intellectual function, that he had significant and substantial deficits in adaptive behavior, and that he manifested those qualities before he turned 18.”</p> <p>Alabama is now back at the Supreme Court. In <em>Hamm v. Smith</em>, Alabama <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-872/342591/20250212131357854_2025.02.12%20--%20Hamm%20v.%20Smith%20Cert%20Petition%20FINAL.pdf">contends</a> that the courts below misapplied <em>Hall </em>and <em>Moore </em>by proceeding to the adaptive-functioning prong of the intellectual-disability test despite no IQ score clearly at or below 70. That, Alabama says, guts the rule requiring defendants to prove each <em>Atkins</em> prong – including “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” – by a preponderance of the evidence. Instead, the 11th Circuit supposedly allowed Smith to proceed based on the possibility that his “true” IQ could fall within range, even if his scores (ranging from 72 to 78 post-age-18) never showed a 70. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-872/355817/20250416175916793_BIO%20II%20Final.pdf">Smith responds</a> that the petition is a factbound request to second-guess credibility determinations after a full evidentiary hearing, and no real circuit split exists. </p> <p>The United States filed a rare (or at least <a href="https://x.com/johnpelwood/status/1901824076366205426">previously rare</a>) unsolicited cert-stage amicus brief supporting Alabama, arguing the court should take the case to clarify that states may require a threshold IQ finding before turning to adaptive deficits. The government also asks the court to grant review to provide guidance on how multiple IQ scores should be evaluated in the aggregate – a surprisingly uncharted area two decades post-<em>Atkins</em>. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-872/352275/20250319101820099_Amicus_Commissioner%20v%20Smith.pdf">Nineteen states have also filed an amicus brief</a> supporting Alabama. Expect a decision soon on whether this becomes <em>Atkins</em>’ next chapter – a grant seems reasonably likely.</p> <p>That’s all for this week. Tune in Monday to find out whether the court will be adding anything to the fall argument calendar. </p> <p><strong>New Relists</strong></p> <p><em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/bost-v-illinois-state-board-of-elections/">Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections</a></em>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-568.html">24-568</a></p> <p><strong>Issue</strong>: Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 22 conference)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/the-geo-group-inc-v-menocal/"><em>The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-758.html">24-758</a></p> <p><strong>Issue</strong>: Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 22 conference)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hamm-v-smith-4/"><em>Hamm v. Smith</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-872.html">24-872</a></p> <p><strong>Issues</strong>: (1) Whether, under a proper application of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/"><em>Atkins v. Virginia</em></a>, a state can require a claimant to prove an IQ of 70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) whether courts evaluating multiple IQ scores must find that every valid score of “about” 75 or less supports an <em>Atkins</em> claim.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 22 conference)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hencely-v-fluor-corporation/"><em>Hencely v. Fluor Corporation</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-924.html">24-924</a></p> <p><strong>Issue: </strong>Whether <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/500/"><em>Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.</em></a> should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2680">Federal Tort Claims Act’s</a> combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 22 conference)</p> <p><strong>Returning Relists</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ocean-state-tactical-llc-v-rhode-island/"><em>Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-131.html">24-131</a></p> <p><strong>Issues: </strong>(1) Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.</p> <p>(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snope-v-brown/"><em>Snope v. Brown</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-203.html">24-203</a></p> <p><strong>Issue:</strong> Whether the Constitution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.</p> <p>(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/first-choice-womens-resource-centers-inc-v-platkin/"><em>First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-781.html">24-781</a></p> <p><strong>Issue: </strong>Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?</p> <p>(Relisted after the April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/ghp-management-corp-v-city-of-los-angeles-california/"><em>GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles, California</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-435.html">24-435</a></p> <p><strong>Issue</strong>: Whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.</p> <p>(Relisted after the April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a></a><a></a><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/nicholson-v-w-l-york-inc-dba-cover-girls/"><em>Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc. dba Cover Girls</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-7490.html">23-7490</a></p> <p><strong>Issue: </strong>Whether the continuing violations doctrine applies to claims premised on a pattern or practice of discrimination, or instead applies only in the context of hostile work environment claims.</p> <p>(Relisted after the April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/chambers-smith-v-ayers/"><em>Chambers-Smith v. Ayers</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-584.html">24-584</a></p> <p><strong>Issue: </strong>Whether, when a person in state custody obtains new support for a previously available claim, that means she has a new “factual predicate” that restarts her clock to file a habeas petition under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2244">28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(D)</a>.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/case-v-montana/"><em>Case v. Montana</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-624.html">24-624</a></p> <p><strong>Issue: </strong>Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/meadors-v-erie-county-board-of-elections/"><em>Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-684.html">24-684</a></p> <p><strong>Issue</strong>: Whether the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine requires plaintiffs in election law cases to predict and articulate specific plans for their own future electoral participation, or instead it is sufficient to show that the challenged law will continue to affect voters and candidates in future elections. </p> <p>(relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/iowa-pork-producers-association-v-bonta/"><em>Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-728.html">24-728</a></p> <p><strong>Issues: </strong>(1) Whether a party alleging that California’s Proposition 12, “which enacts a pork sales ban to regulate the manner in which pigs are housed in states across the country,” discriminates against interstate commerce, both directly and under <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/137/"><em>Pike v. Bruce Church</em></a>, states a claim; and (2) whether lower federal courts evaluating fractured opinions from the court consider all justices’ opinions to determine the majority position on a legal issue, or instead are limited to consider only opinions concurring in the result.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/government-contractors-defenses-election-challenges-and-intellectual-disability-in-capital-cases/">Government contractors’ defenses, election challenges, and intellectual disability in capital cases</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
Protestors threw a bag of tomatoes and red onions at Sweden’s foreign minister during a debate on Stockholm’s position on Israeli settlements in the West…
