Brett Kavanaugh

Rule Changes

Authored concurring opinion in 6-3 majority

The Supreme Court told President Trump he can't send National Guard troops to Illinois. The 6-3 decision on December 23 marks the first time the modern court has blocked a president from federalizing state Guard units over a governor's objections. Trump claimed protests at an ICE facility in suburban Chicago constituted a rebellion, and the court wasn't buying it.

Updated 2 hours ago

Rule Changes

Joined Alito majority in Callais; his time-limit framing was not adopted but the majority's intentional-discrimination standard is a comparable narrowing

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on April 29, 2026, in Louisiana v. Callais that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—the main federal tool minority voters have used for four decades to challenge racially discriminatory maps—now requires plaintiffs to prove intentional discrimination before courts can order a remedy. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion; Justice Elena Kagan dissented for the three liberal justices, writing that the ruling makes Section 2 'all but a dead letter' and marks 'the latest chapter in the majority's now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.' On May 4, the Court ordered its judgment to take effect immediately, bypassing the usual 25-day window for rehearing requests; on May 6, it denied civil rights plaintiffs' motion to recall the ruling, making the decision final and operative.

Updated May 7

Rule Changes

Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

For decades, federal courts disagreed on a fundamental question: Is court-ordered restitution a criminal punishment or a civil remedy? The distinction matters because the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause bars retroactive increases in criminal punishment—but not civil obligations. On January 20, 2026, the Supreme Court unanimously answered: restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is plainly criminal punishment, and defendants cannot be held to payment terms that didn't exist when they committed their crimes.

Updated Jan 21

Rule Changes

Questioned both sides during oral arguments

A Louisiana jury ordered Chevron to pay $745 million in April 2025 for wrecking coastal wetlands through decades of oil drilling. Now the Supreme Court will decide if that verdict stands—or if Chevron can escape to federal court by claiming it was acting under federal orders when it refined aviation fuel during World War II. The catch: the lawsuit concerns oil production, not refining, and much of the damage happened decades after the war ended.

Updated Jan 14