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.