The 2025 Supreme Court Term: Significant Regulatory and Administrative Law Decisions

Posted
by

The Court has begun its 2026 Term with a bang (i.e., the Suncor climate change case), but the 2025 Term (October 5, 2025, through October 4, 2026) resulted in decisions in 68 cases, many of which were quite significant. At least 20 cases from the 2026 Term stand out.

  1. Monsanto Co. v. Durnell (decided on June 25, 2026). In an opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court reversed a decision of a Missouri state appeals court that the plaintiff’s personal injury case could proceed to trial despite the defense that the state law failure-to-warn complaint was preempted by the Federal Insecticide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and EPA’s FIFRA-based pesticide labeling rules, a point of law endorsed by the Court. At issue was the use of Monsanto’s “Roundup” pesticide, which has been challenged in many lawsuits.
  2. Cisco Systems, Inc. v Doe (June 23, 2026). In a narrow 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that federal courts may not create new causes of action under the federal Alien Tort statute, which is essentially concerned with the Law of Nations and is accordingly strictly construed.
  3. Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock (June 23, 2026). In a unanimous ruling, the Court held that Brock, a Denver-based distributor, was engaged in interstate commerce for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act although he never left the confines of Colorado. This ruling, albeit fairly obscure now, could become more significant in the future.
  4. Trump v. Barbara, et al. (June 30, 2026). This is the “Birthright citizenship” case. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that a President’s executive order cannot overturn a right established by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Court’s research disclosed that there were many historical antecedents to the 1866 actions of the Congress.
  5. Trump v. Cook, (June 29, 2026). In an opinion written by the Chief Justice, the Court held that the President’s attempt to remove a Governor of the Federal Reserve board was not “for cause” as required by the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve occupies a unique place as a federal agency which distinguishes it from other federal regulatory agencies.
  6. Trump v. Slaughter (June 29, 2026). The Court overturned its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor which made it very difficult for a President to remove a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner. The court held that the President has, and indeed must have, the Constitutional authority to remove a member of the FTC, a body that also exerts broad executive powers.
  7. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Elections Commission (June 30, 2026). In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that FEC rules limiting the ability of a political party’s ability to coordinate spending with the candidate in a political campaign, violate the First Amendment.
  8. Chatrie v. United States (June 29, 2026). The Court held that the federal government’s collection of Google locator history in solving a credit union robbery implicates the Fourth Amendment, and requires a federal warrant to proceed. A “geofence” warrant is insufficient.
  9. Sripetch v. SEC (June 4, 2026). The Court held that the SEC may use as an enforcement tool, ”disgorgement” in civil enforcement cases, requiring the malefactor to return any funds obtained through unlawful conduct.
  10. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (February 20, 2026). The Court held in a 6-3 decision that the Industrial Energy Economic Power Act (IEEPA) does not give the President independent power to impose tariffs.
  11. S. Postal Service v. Konen (February 24, 2026). In an opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the United States enjoys “sovereign immunity” over plaintiff’s claims that a local Postal Service deliberately failed to deliver his mail. This is the “postal exemption” to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
  12. Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc. (June 4, 2026). In an opinion written by the Chief Justice, the Court held that the FCC’s administrative forfeiture procedures are constitutional, AT&T does not have the right to request a jury trial before the administrative forfeiture proceedings take hold, and AT&T does not have a right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The FCC’s procedures differ from those employed by the SEC in the Sarkesy case that was recently decided by the Court.
  13. Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporation Cimex, S. A. (Cuba) (June 23, 2026). The Court held that Exxon may proceed under the provisions of the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 to seek monetary reimbursement for its Cuban properties confiscated in the early days of the Cuban Revolution in the 1960s.
  14. Florida v. California and Washington (May 26, 2026). In a rare Original Action filed in the Court, the Court denied Florida’s motion for leave to file a complaint against California and Washington for their failure to require applicants for commercial motor vehicle licenses to read and speak English. The filing falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
  15. Enbridge Energy LP v. Nessel (April 22, 2026). The Court, in a unanimous decision, held that Enbridge’s failure to observe the deadlines set by federal law to remove a state-law based complaint to federal court was fatal. Moreover, the controlling statute does not recognize the concept of “equitable tolling” to affect these deadlines.
  16. Louisiana v. Callais, et al. (April 29, 2026). In a voting rights case, the Court held that Louisiana’s revised Congressional redistricting map, which created a second Black majority district, was itself an unconstitutional gerrymander as it permits a state to discriminate on the basis of race.
  17. West Virginia V. BPJ (June 30, 2026). The Court held that West Virginia laws mandating separate facilities for men and women athletes complies with Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. The Court agreed that the policies embraced in these state laws were substantially related to important state interests.
  18. Mullin v. Doe (June 25, 2026). In an immigration law enforcement matter, the Court rejected a challenge to the Temporary Protected Status provided under the IN Act.
  19. Mullin v. Al Orthro Lado (June 25, 2020). The Court held that under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), an alien standing in Mexico cannot trigger the asylum procedures in the United States. Only when an alien crosses the border and presents himself to the agency are these processes triggered.
  20. Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish (April 17, 2026). The Court held in a unanimous decision that the federal officer removal statute can be employed to remove state law-based lawsuits asserting damage claims against oil and gas companies operating in these parishes. In 2013, 42 lawsuits were filed in state courts, but the evidence showed that many of these defendants were acting at the behest of the federal government in the early days of World War II to produce more energy and oil and gas products. This fact triggered the “federal officer removal” statute. The Court holds that the defendants plausibly alleged a close relationship between the energy companies and the federal government.

RELATED ARTICLES

A Court-Side Seat: Summer 2026