About this episode
In this episode, we analyze the Supreme Court's recent activities across three key areas: Six near unanimous decisions released on June 12th, 2025 Two major cases granted certiorari via June 16th, 2025 Order In this episode, we analyze the Supreme Court's recent activities across three key areas: Term statistics and remaining docket overview Six decisions released on June 12th, 2025 Two major cases granted certiorari via June 16th, 2025 Order 2024 Term Statistics Total cases heard: 62 unique cases this term Cases decided: 41 (approximately 66%) Cases pending: 21 (approximately 33%) Methodology: Consolidated cases counted once (e.g., Trump v. CASA/Washington/New Jersey) Timing significance: June typically brings most consequential decisions Key Observations from June 12th, 2025 Decisions Observation #1: Unanimity Reigned Supreme. June 12th consensus: 4 unanimous (9-0) decisions, 2 near-unanimous (8-1) decisions. Two-week pattern: 9 unanimous decisions and 3 8-1 splits out of 12 total case. Historical context: Must go back 15 opinions to find more than 2 dissents (May 22nd Oklahoma Charter School case). Full-term data: 29 of 41 decided cases unanimous or near-unanimous (71% consensus) Observation #2: Opinion Assignments Tell a Story. Recent distribution: 8 of 9 justices wrote majority opinions in past two weeks; Justice Kavanaugh who wrote sole opinion the week before) Observation #3: Speed Suggests Strategic Docket Management. Rapid turnaround: 6-10 weeks from oral argument to decision. Contrast with pending cases: U.S. v. Skrmetti (transgender medical care): 6+ months since December 4th argument; Hewitt v. United States (First Step Act): pending since January 13th; and Stanley v. City of Sanford (ADA): pending since January 13th. Observation #4: Uncle Sam Had a Bad Day. Government losses: 5 of 6 cases involved citizens vs. government agencies. Case types: FBI raid victims, disabled student vs. school district, veterans vs. benefits administration, prisoner vs. federal procedures, taxpayer vs. IRS. Pattern: Court prioritizing individual redress against institutional power. Only government win: Rivers v. Guerrero, which involved stricter habeas petition standards. Observation #5: The Court as Error Corrector. Reversal rate: 10 of 12 cases vacated or reversed (83%). Term comparison: Higher than overall 66% reversal rate. "Kick it back" approach: Court often vacates with instructions rather than final resolution Observation #6: Roberts' Perfect Record. Chief Justice pattern: 41 cases, 41 majority opinions joined. Zero concurrences, zero dissents. Contrast with other justices:Justice Thomas: 5 dissents, Justice Gorsuch: 4 dissents (including both June 12th dissents) and Justice Jackson: 3 dissents authored, 1 joined. June 16th, 2025 Certiorari Grants 1. First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Matthew Platkin | Case No. 24-781 | Docket Link: Here . Question Presented: 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? Key Facts: New Jersey Attorney General issued civil investigatory subpoena to faith-based pregnancy center Subpoena sought donor identities, medical claims, operational practices First Choice filed federal § 1983 lawsuit two days before compliance deadline Complex parallel litigation in federal and state courts Petitioner's Arguments: Circuit split: Fifth Circuit bars pre-enforcement challenges vs. Ninth Circuit allows when showing objective chill Concrete injury through chilling of First Amendment association/speech rights § 1983 guarantees federal forum; state court requirement creates "preclusion trap" Respondent's Arguments: No circuit split—Third Circuit decision was fact-specific Case presents unique procedural complications unsuitable for broad resolution Claims too speculative under Article III ripeness doctrine Stakes: Federal court access for constitutional challenges to state investigations 2. Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana | Case No. 24-813 | Docket Link: Here . Questions Presented: Whether a causal-nexus or contractual direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute Whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract Key Facts: Louisiana parishes sued oil companies for environmental harm from WWII-era crude oil production Companies sought federal officer removal based on WWII contracts to supply high-octane aviation gasoline Fifth Circuit found companies satisfied "acting under" requirement but failed "relating to" requirement Majority required explicit contractual directive about challenged conduct Petitioner's Arguments: Fifth Circuit improperly required "explicit directive" in federal contracts Circuit split on federal officer removal standards Vertically integrated operations inherently connected crude production to federally-mandated refinement Respondent's Arguments: No circuit conflict—decision was fact-specific, unpublished Federal crude oil allocation program "severed" connection by allowing open market purchases Contracts contained no directives about extraction methods or locations Stakes: Determines whether climate litigation stays in state court (plaintiff preference) or moves to federal court (defendant preference); potential impact on all pending climate cases 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. Timestamps [00:00:00] Introduction [00:00:23] Decision Tally [00:01:25] 6-Pack of Observations: June 12th Opinions [00:09:52] June 16 Order List [00:10:26] Cert Grant: First Choice v. Platkin [00:13:36] Cert Grant: Chevron v. Plaquemines