The High Court Report

United States v. Hemani | Oral Argument: 3/2/2026 | Case No. 24-1234 | Docket Link: Here
Overview: Constitutional challenge to federal law criminalizing firearm possession by marijuana users tests Supreme Court's new historical framework for gun regulations after millions potentially face prosecution.
Question Presented: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent
Posture: Fifth Circuit granted summary affirmance dismissing prosecution; government appeals seeking reversal.
Main Arguments:
• Government (Petitioner): (1) Founding-era laws restricting "habitual drunkards" provide historical precedent supporting marijuana user disarmament; (2) Circuit courts split on constitutional analysis requiring Supreme Court intervention; (3) Section 925(c) relief process addresses constitutional concerns through administrative remedies
• Hemani (Respondent): (1) Government's historical analogues fail Bruen-Rahimi "why" and "how" requirements for constitutional restrictions; (2) No genuine circuit split exists warranting Supreme Court review; (3) Administrative relief cannot cure fundamental constitutional violations
Implications:
Government victory enables continued prosecution of millions combining legal state marijuana use with lawful firearm ownership, expanding congressional power over combined legal activities. Hemani victory requires narrow tailoring of federal gun restrictions, potentially invalidating broad categorical prohibitions lacking specific historical justification and forcing legislative reconsideration of drug user firearm restrictions.
The Fine Print:
• 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3): "It shall be unlawful for any person...who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance...to...possess...any firearm"
• Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Primary Cases:
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022): Government must demonstrate historical tradition supporting firearm regulations through relevantly similar "why" and "how" justifications from founding era
• United States v. Rahimi (2024): Historical analogues need not provide "historical twin" but must address comparable problems through similar regulatory approaches under constitutional analysis

Pung v. Isabella County | Oral Argument: 2/25/2026 | Case No. 25-95 | Docket Link: Here
Overview: Family loses $194,400 home over disputed $2,242 tax bill, creating constitutional clash between property rights and government revenue collection.
Question Presented: Whether the Takings Clause requires just compensation equal to fair market value when government forecloses on tax-delinquent property and retains surplus proceeds, and whether the Excessive Fines Clause provides independent relief.
Posture:
• District Court granted partial summary judgment on takings claim, dismissed excessive fines claim
• Eastern District transferred case, awarded only surplus proceeds plus interest
• Sixth Circuit affirmed surplus proceeds compensation
• Supreme Court granted cert
Main Arguments:
• Pung (Petitioner): (1) Fifth Amendment demands fair market value compensation, not auction proceeds; (2) Forced sales systematically depress prices below constitutional standards; (3) 53-to-1 forfeiture ratio violates Excessive Fines Clause
• Isabella County (Respondent): (1) Centuries of Anglo-American tradition establish surplus proceeds as sufficient compensation; (2) Fair market value cannot apply to forced sales under BFP precedent; (3) Fair market value requirements would eliminate effective tax collection
Implications:
Pung victory strengthens property owner protection but could cripple local government tax collection and bankrupt counties. Isabella County victory preserves efficient revenue collection while potentially enabling government abuse of foreclosure processes for profit.
The Fine Print:
• Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation"
• Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
Primary Cases:
• Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023): Government must return surplus proceeds from tax sales but Court reserved question whether additional compensation required under Takings Clause
• BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1994): Fair market value "has no applicability in forced-sale context" because foreclosure redefines market conditions and eliminates normal exchange rules

Enbridge Energy v. Nessel | Oral Argument: 2/24/2026 | Case No. 24-783 | Docket Link: Here |
Overview: Pipeline company removes Michigan environmental lawsuit to federal court two years late, claiming extraordinary circumstances involving international treaty and state forum manipulation justify extending statutory deadline.
Question Presented: Can federal may extend the 30-day removal deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) for extraordinary circumstances.
Posture: District court allowed late removal; Sixth Circuit reversed and ordered remand to state court.
Main Arguments:
• Enbridge (Petitioner): (1) Equitable tolling presumption applies to all non-jurisdictional filing deadlines; (2) Congressional exceptions elsewhere don't preclude judicial flexibility here; (3) International treaty invocation and state forum manipulation create extraordinary circumstances
• Nessel (Respondent): (1) Removal deadlines govern forum selection, not claim staleness; (2) Six express statutory exceptions rebut tolling presumption; (3) Strategic litigation choices don't constitute extraordinary circumstances
Implications: Enbridge victory expands defendant flexibility for late federal court access when genuine emergencies arise but risks encouraging strategic removal delays. Nessel victory enforces strict congressional deadlines and prevents removal manipulation but could bar federal jurisdiction even when international treaties or diplomatic relations face genuine threats. Middle-ground ruling might distinguish ordinary delays from cases involving actual foreign policy implications, creating specialized removal doctrine for international law contexts.
The Fine Print:
• 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1): "The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading"
• 1977 U.S.-Canada Transit Pipelines Treaty, Article II(1): "Each Party shall ensure that no public authority in its jurisdiction implements any measure that would have the effect of impeding, redirecting, redirecting or interfering with in any way the transmission of hydrocarbons in transit"
Primary Cases:
• Young v. United States (2002): Equitable tolling applies to statutory deadlines that "prescribe a period within which certain rights may be enforced" unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise
• Arellano v. McDonough (2023): Detailed statutory exceptions within same provision rebut equitable tolling presumption; courts cannot add implied exceptions where Congress specified express ones

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. | Oral Argument: 2/23/2026 | Case No. 24-983 | Docket Link: Here
Question Presented: Whether Title III liability requires proving defendants trafficked in property plaintiff currently owns a claim to, or property plaintiff would own absent confiscation.
Overview: Cuban property confiscation case challenges Eleventh Circuit's "counterfactual analysis" requiring proof of hypothetical property ownership, potentially gutting Congress's primary tool for pressuring hostile regimes.
Posture: Eleventh Circuit reversed district court grant of summary judgment for petitioner.
Main Arguments:
• Havana Docks (Petitioner): (1) Statute creates liability when plaintiff "owns the claim," not hypothetical property ownership; (2) Cuba confiscated physical dock facilities, not abstract concession rights; (3) Narrow interpretation defeats congressional deterrence objectives
• Cruise Lines (Respondent): (1) Property law requires respecting temporal limitations on original rights; (2) Concession excluded passenger services, preventing trafficking in cargo-only rights; (3) Congress balanced deterrence against property law principles
Implications: Havana Docks victory preserves congressional sanctions tool and reinforces meaningful private remedies against hostile regimes. Cruise lines victory creates roadmap for exploiting confiscated property through temporal limitations arguments, undermining deterrent effect and foreign policy objectives toward Cuba.
The Fine Print:
• 22 U.S.C. §6082(a)(1)(A): "Any person who traffics in property which the Cuban Government confiscated shall face liability to any United States national who owns the claim to such property"
• 22 U.S.C. §6023(12)(A): "Property" includes "any present, future, or contingent right, security, or other interest therein, including any leasehold interest"
Primary Cases:
• Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935): Congress can restrict presidential removal power for independent agencies through "for cause" requirements, establishing legislative authority over agency independence
• United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. (2007): Courts reject interpretations that "reduce potential plaintiffs to almost zero, rendering statutory provisions a dead letter"

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corpora Cion Cimex, S.A. (Cuba) | Oral Argument: 2/23/26 | Case No. 24-699 | Docket Link: Here
Overview: Constitutional challenge to D.C. Circuit decision dismissing lawsuit against Cuban state-owned companies operating stolen American oil facilities raises fundamental questions about congressional authority to override sovereign immunity for targeted foreign policy objectives.
Question Presented: Whether Exxon Mobil can sue Cuban companies for seizing Exxon Mobil’s oil refineries and related property.
Posture: D.C. District Court denied Cuban companies' motion to dismiss; D.C. Circuit reversed for lack of jurisdiction
Main Arguments:
• Exxon (Petitioner): (1) Title III's "any person" language including foreign instrumentalities effects clear immunity abrogation; (2) Congressional purpose requires Cuban government accountability without FSIA compliance; (3) Supreme Court precedent eliminates magic-words requirement for immunity waiver
• Cimex (Respondent): (1) Kirtz distinction applies because FSIA creates restrictive immunity regime allowing suit progression; (2) Statutory harmonization principles permit Title III and FSIA coexistence without implied repeal; (3) Petitioner's interpretation creates subject-matter jurisdiction gaps
Implications: Exxon victory enables $9 billion in Cuban expropriation claims while establishing congressional authority for targeted immunity abrogation. A Cimex victory preserves traditional sovereign immunity protections, requiring Americans to satisfy onerous FSIA exceptions for Cuban trafficking claims.
The Fine Print:
• Helms-Burton Act § 6082(a)(1): "Any person that traffics in property which was confiscated...shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property"
• 22 U.S.C. § 6023(11): "'Person' means any person or entity, including any agency or instrumentality of a foreign state"
Primary Cases:
• Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz (2024): Fair Credit Reporting Act abrogated federal sovereign immunity through "any person" language creating government liability; clear congressional intent overcomes immunity presumptions
• Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (2023): Statutory immunity abrogation requires "unmistakably clear" congressional language; recognizing immunity would negate authorized cause of action entirely