Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United States

Facts
The case involves a challenge to the Biden administration's efforts to dismantle a Trump-era immigration program known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy (officially the Migrant Protection Protocols or MPP). The policy required certain asylum seekers arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border to wait in Mexico for their immigration court hearings. The Biden administration sought to terminate the program in 2021, but federal courts in Texas and Missouri blocked those efforts, finding that the administration had not adequately considered the policy's benefits or followed proper procedures. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Biden v. Texas (2022) that the administration had the authority to end the program, but lower courts continued to entertain challenges from states claiming they would suffer harm from increased immigration. The current case, brought by the states of Texas and Missouri, argues that the administration's latest termination attempt still violates federal immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1225) and the Administrative Procedure Act. Acting Attorney General Blanche defends the administration's position that the executive branch has broad discretion over immigration enforcement and that MPP is no longer necessary or operationally feasible. The district court sided with the states and ordered the reinstatement of MPP, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether states have standing to challenge the termination and whether the administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

Case Summary:
The FCC fined major wireless carriers over $100 million for unlawfully selling access to customer location data to third parties without consent. AT&T received a $57 million fine, and Verizon received nearly $47 million. The fines stem from an investigation prompted by reports that a Missouri sheriff obtained customer location data through a third-party service. The dispute reached the Supreme Court due to a circuit split on whether the FCC's forfeiture orders violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The Second Circuit upheld the FCC's fine, ruling that an initial penalty assessment is constitutional as long as the party can later challenge collection efforts in court. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the FCC's initial assessment of wrongdoing and fine deprived AT&T of its constitutional right to a jury trial. The carriers argued that the FCC's in-house proceedings created a "penalty-now-trial-later" system. The FCC argued that its orders are not binding because if a company refuses to pay, the agency must file a collection lawsuit in federal court where the company gets a full jury trial. The case arrived shortly after the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, which invalidated the SEC's in-house civil fraud enforcement system for violating the Seventh Amendment.

Facts
Ongkaruck Sripetch ran penny-stock "pump-and-dump" schemes, artificially inflating prices before selling to unwitting investors. He pleaded guilty to criminal securities fraud and served 21 months in prison. In a parallel civil proceeding, a California district court ordered him to pay $2.251 million in disgorgement plus over $1 million in prejudgment interest—approximately $3.2 million total. The court did not require the SEC to prove that specific investors suffered financial (pecuniary) harm.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that proof of pecuniary harm is not required for disgorgement. This deepened a circuit split:
Second Circuit (SEC v. Govil): Proof of pecuniary harm required
First & Ninth Circuits: No such proof required
The Supreme Court granted review on January 9, 2026, with both parties agreeing that resolution was needed.

Background & Facts
The case arises from an SEC civil enforcement action against Ongkaruck Sripetch, who orchestrated a series of fraudulent "pump-and-dump" schemes involving penny-stock companies. Sripetch artificially inflated stock prices through manipulative trading and scalping campaigns before selling shares to unwitting investors at inflated prices .
Sripetch admitted to securities law violations and was sentenced to 21 months in prison in a related criminal case . In the civil proceeding, a California district court ordered him to pay over $2.251 million in disgorgement plus more than $1 million in prejudgment interest—totaling approximately $3.2 million . Critically, the court did not require the SEC to demonstrate that specific investors suffered pecuniary (financial) harm from Sripetch's conduct .
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that a showing of pecuniary harm to investors is not a precondition for disgorgement under the relevant statutory provisions. This deepened an existing circuit split:
Second Circuit (SEC v. Govil): Requires proof of pecuniary harm because disgorgement is equitable relief "for victims"
First & Ninth Circuits: No such showing required; disgorgement is measured by the wrongdoer's gain, not victim loss
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 9, 2026, with the SEC's support—an unusual circumstance where both parties agreed review was needed .

Case Summary:
In the case of Trump, President of the United States v. Barbara (Docket No. 25-365), argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 1, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows:
Fact Summary
The litigation is a landmark constitutional challenge to an Executive Order signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, which seeks to end the practice of automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (specifically those present temporarily or unlawfully).
The lead plaintiff, Barbara, represents a certified nationwide class of infants born after February 20, 2025, who would be denied U.S. citizenship under the terms of the order. The challenge was brought by a coalition of civil rights groups, including the ACLU and the Legal Defense Fund.
The core legal and factual dispute centers on the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The Trump administration, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argues that "subject to the jurisdiction" implies a requirement of "complete political allegiance." Under this theory, children of foreign nationals—who owe allegiance to a different sovereign—do not fall within the intended scope of the Amendment as it was understood by its framers in 1868.
The plaintiffs contend that the Clause codified the centuries-old common law rule of jus soli (right of the soil), where birth within the territory is the sole requirement for citizenship. They rely on the 1898 Supreme Court precedent United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for a child born in the U.S. to Chinese parents who were not eligible for naturalization.
The factual record includes the administration's assertion that the order "restores" the original meaning of the Constitution to prevent "birth tourism" and the creation of a "permanent subclass" of individuals. Conversely, the plaintiffs provided evidence that the order would impact over 200,000 children annually, stripping them of access to passports, federal benefits, and protection from deportation.
In July 2025, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante issued a preliminary injunction blocking the order, ruling that it likely contradicts "a century of untouched precedent." The First Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed that the President lacks the unilateral authority to redefine constitutional citizenship.
During the oral arguments on April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court justices explored the "allegiance" distinction. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether the administration's logic would also exclude the children of tourists or diplomats, while other members of the Court scrutinized whether a change of this magnitude requires a Constitutional Amendment rather than an Executive Order.
The hearing was marked by the unusual presence of President Trump himself in the courtroom, highlighting the high stakes of what is widely considered the most significant constitutional case of the decade.