- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services industries
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Law Department Performance and Consumer Protection topic(s)
- with Inhouse Counsel
Hello from Dykema's Appellate and Critical Motions Practice! The February Edition of Last Month at the Supreme Court® examines several closely watched matters, highlighting disputes that implicate constitutional structure, individual rights, and federal statutory interpretation. This month's issue features analyses of recent oral arguments and a newly granted case that will be heard next term, including:
- Whether state firearm laws restricting concealed carry in certain locations violate the Second Amendment;
- Whether a state statute that bars transgender women and girls from participating on public school female sport teams violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause;
- Whether Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state from assigning students to girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex as determined at birth;
- The scope of the President's authority to remove a member of an independent agency; and
- Whether the phrase "goods or services from a video tape service provider," as used in the Video Privacy Protection Act's definition of "consumer," encompasses all goods or services offered by a video service provider or only its audiovisual offerings.
This Edition also analyzes Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton, a unanimous decision holding that any party seeking to vacate allegedly void judgments must do so within a "reasonable time," rejecting the view (held by 11 circuits) that such challenges may be brought at any time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
Take a few minutes to read—or listen to—our concise summaries for practical insight into how these cases may shape litigation strategy, regulatory enforcement, administrative decision-making, and business decisions across industries.
For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Kyle Asher, Mark Magyar, Andy VanEgmond, Monika Harris, Ryan VanOver, David Ter-Petrosyan, or Sadie Betting.
Supreme Court Considers the Limits of Presidential Removal Power Over the Federal Reserve
In Trump v. Cook, the Supreme Court is considering whether to stay a district court order that prevents the President from removing Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook. Although the case reaches the Court at the preliminary-injunction stage, it raises a significant structural question: how far presidential removal power extends over officials serving in congressionally-designed independent institutions such as the Federal Reserve.
When Property Rules Shape Gun Rights: The Supreme Court Considers Wolford v. Lopez
In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court is examining how far states may go in regulating licensed concealed-carry firearms after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The case challenges Hawaii and California laws that restrict concealed carry in numerous "sensitive places" and, more significantly, prohibit licensed individuals from carrying firearms onto private property open to the public unless the owner gives express permission. The case places front and center a fundamental question: when does a state's definition of property rights impermissibly burden Second Amendment rights?
Supreme Court Considers Whether Idaho's Ban on Transgender Participation in Women's Sports Violates Equal Protection
In Little v. Hecox, the Supreme Court is considering whether Idaho's Fairness in Women's Sports Act violates the Equal Protection Clause by barring transgender women and girls from participating on female-designated sports teams in public schools. The case, argued alongside West Virginia v. B.P.J., places before the Court a closely watched dispute at the intersection of equal protection doctrine, sex-based classifications, and athletic regulation.
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That There Is a "Reasonable Time" Limit To Challenge Void Judgments
On January 20, 2026, in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, the Supreme Court unanimously held that litigants do not have unlimited time to challenge judgments as void; instead, they must file any such challenge within a "reasonable time." The decision resolved an 11-1 circuit split, affirming the Sixth Circuit and concluding that all the other circuit courts to address this question have been improperly allowing litigants to seek to vacate void judgments with no time limit at all.
Grant Alert
Notable Business Cases the Court Granted Last Month.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
