The High Court Report

Opinion Summary: Hamm v. Smith | SCOTUS Declines to Dig into IQ Score Showdow

Hamm v. Smith | Case No. 24-872 | Decided: May 21, 2026 | Docket Link: Here [https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-872.html] Overview: Death penalty case examining how courts evaluate multiple IQ scores when determining intellectual disability under Atkins. Court dismissed writ as improvidently granted after oral argument revealed parties never litigated the question below. Question Presented: Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing Atkins claims. Posture: Eleventh Circuit affirmed District Court finding Smith intellectually disabled using holistic approach. Main Arguments: * Alabama (Petitioner): (1) Courts must combine multiple IQ scores using statistical methods to determine whether defendant proves IQ of 70 or below by preponderance; (2) Standard error of measurement applies equally in both directions, preventing reliance solely on lowest score's error range; (3) Holistic approaches that consider adaptive functioning alongside IQ scores improperly expand Atkins protection beyond intellectual functioning threshold. * Smith (Respondent): (1) Courts must assess multiple scores holistically, considering measurement error, expert testimony, and other evidence of intellectual functioning together; (2) Hall requires courts to account for standard error when scores fall near the threshold; (3) Professional standards recommend clinical judgment considering all available evidence rather than mechanical statistical formulas. Holding: Per curiam opinion dismissed writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Justice Sotomayor wrote concurring opinion joined by Justice Jackson. Justice Thomas dissented. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justice Thomas, with Justice Gorsuch joining Parts I–III. No substantive ruling on merits. Majority Reasoning: Per curiam provided no reasoning. Two sentences: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. It is so ordered." Dismissal leaves Eleventh Circuit decision protecting Smith from execution intact without Supreme Court guidance on evaluating multiple IQ scores. Opinion: Here [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-872_ec8f.pdf] Separate Opinions: * Justice Sotomayor (concurring, joined by Jackson): Case presented poor vehicle because parties never litigated proposed methodologies below; Alabama's own expert used holistic approach Alabama now attacks; no state follows Alabama's proposed rule. * Justice Thomas (dissenting): Would overrule Atkins entirely as improper judicial lawmaking lacking foundation in Eighth Amendment text or original understanding. * Justice Alito (dissenting, joined by Thomas, with Gorsuch joining Parts I–III): Court should have provided guidance on recurring question; lower courts need direction on evaluating multiple scores; dismissal exacerbates confusion in Atkins doctrine. Implications: Smith remains protected from execution. Courts nationwide lack Supreme Court guidance on multiple IQ scores beyond Hall and Moore principles. Holistic approach validated below remains permissible. Deep division among Justices signals potential vulnerability in Atkins doctrine. Defense attorneys gain validation for flexible methodologies; prosecutors cannot rely on rigid numerical cutoffs. The Fine Print: * Eighth Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." * Alabama Intellectual Disability Standard (Ex parte Perkins, 2002): Defendant must prove by preponderance: "(1) significantly subaverage intellectual functioning (an IQ of 70 or below); (2) significant or substantial deficits in adaptive behavior; (3) manifestation during the developmental period (before age 18)." Primary Cases: * Atkins v. Virginia (2002): Eighth Amendment categorically bars executing intellectually disabled individuals; states develop appropriate enforcement standards while Supreme Court establishes constitutional floors. * Hall v. Florida (2014): Courts must consider standard error of measurement when evaluating IQ scores near 70 threshold; rigid cutoffs ignoring measurement error violate Eighth Amendment protections.

Oral Argument Re-Listen: M & K v. IAM Pension Trustees | Pension Plan Predicament Put to Rest

M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of The IAM Pension Fund | Argument Date: 1/20/26 | Docket Link: Here [https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-455.html] Oral Advocates: * For Petitioner (M&K Employee Solutions): Michael E. Kenneally, Jr., Washington, D.C. * For Respondent (IAM National Pension Fund): John E. Roberts, Providence, Rhode Island. * For United States as (Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent): Kevin J. Barber, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice. Question Presented: Can pension plans charge higher prices using future prices, or must they stick with the original prices? Overview: Four companies' pension withdrawal liability tripled from timing of actuarial assumption changes, creating circuit split over whether "as of" December 31st calculations require December 31st assumptions or permit retrospective professional judgment. Posture: Arbitrators favored companies; D.C. District Court and Circuit reversed, permitting post-measurement assumption adoption with restrictions. Main Arguments: * Petitioners: (1) "As of" language creates statutory deadline requiring pre-measurement assumption adoption; (2) Legislative framework expected annual assumption reviews before measurement dates; (3) Anti-manipulation principles from Section 1394 should apply to actuarial assumptions * Respondents: (1) "As of" establishes reference date, not completion deadline for retrospective valuations; (2) "Best estimate" requirement mandates current professional judgment over stale assumptions; (3) Standard actuarial practice permits and encourages post-measurement selection Holding: The ERISA provisions governing the calculation of withdrawal liability from an underfunded Multiemployer Pension Plan do not require that actuarial assumptions underlying the calculation be selected on or before the statutory measurement date. Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Jackson wrote the majority opinion joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Affirmed D.C. Circuit. Opinion: Here [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/23-1209_i3kn.pdf] Majority Reasoning: (1) Section 1391's "as of" language assigns hard data to measurement date but permits calculation performance afterward using tools including assumptions; (2) Section 1393 imposes no deadline for assumption selection and Congress's omission from parallel provisions signals intentional choice; (3) "Best estimate" requirement necessitates access to most current data potentially unavailable before measurement date. Implications: Pension plans gain flexibility to select actuarial assumptions after measurement dates using current market data and professional judgment. Employers lose timing-based challenges but retain substantive reasonableness challenges through arbitration. Actuaries avoid artificial deadlines while maintaining accountability through reasonableness requirements. Court leaves open whether assumptions must reflect only information available as of measurement date. The Fine Print: * 29 U.S.C. § 1391: "The amount of an employer's withdrawal liability...shall be computed...as of the end of the plan year preceding the plan year in which the withdrawal occurs" * 29 U.S.C. § 1393(a)(1): "actuarial assumptions and methods which...offer the actuary's best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan" Primary Cases: * National Retirement Fund v. Metz Culinary Management (2020): Second Circuit held actuarial assumptions for withdrawal liability must exist by measurement date; automatic rollover applies absent timely changes * Concrete Pipe & Products v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust (1993): Withdrawal liability creates "fixed and certain debt"; actuarial determinations receive presumption of correctness due to professional constraints and statutory requirements Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview [00:01:30] Oral Argument Begins [00:01:41] M & K Opening Statement [00:03:33] M & K Free for All Questions [00:26:54] M & K Round Robin Questions [00:31:47] IAM Opening Statement [00:34:23] IAM Free for All Questions [00:47:28] IAM Round Robin Questions [00:47:31] United States Opening Statement [00:48:39] United States Free for All Questions [00:53:44] United States Round Robin Questions [00:53:50] M & K Rebuttal

Opinion Summary: M & K v. IAM Pension Trustees | Pension Plan Predicament Put to Rest

I'll create show notes and five alternative episode title options for this opinion episode.Now I'll create the show notes and title options for the M & K Employee Solutions opinion episode. PART 1: SHOW NOTES M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of IAM National Pension Fund | Case No. 23-1209 | Decided May 21, 2026 | Docket Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1209.html Overview: ERISA withdrawal liability dispute resolves when pension plan actuaries must select calculation assumptions, affecting billions in retirement obligations across multiemployer pension plans serving unionized workers nationwide. Question Presented: Whether ERISA requires actuarial assumptions underlying withdrawal liability calculations get selected on or before the statutory measurement date. Posture: D.C. Circuit affirmed district courts allowing post-measurement-date assumption selection, conflicting with Second Circuit precedent. Main Arguments: * Employers (Petitioners): (1) Statute's "as of" language freezes all calculation inputs including assumptions on measurement date; (2) Actuarial assumptions constitute factual inputs requiring temporal fixation; (3) Broad anti-retroactivity principle prevents post-measurement assumption adoption. * Pension Fund (Respondent): (1) "As of" language sets reference point for hard data only while tools get selected later; (2) Actuarial assumptions constitute analytical methods not observable facts; (3) "Best estimate" requirement supports using most current available data when selecting assumptions. Holding: The ERISA provisions governing the calculation of withdrawal liability from an underfunded Multiemployer Pension Plan do not require that actuarial assumptions underlying the calculation be selected on or before the statutory measurement date. Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Jackson wrote the majority opinion joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Affirmed D.C. Circuit. Opinion: Here [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/23-1209_i3kn.pdf] Majority Reasoning: (1) Section 1391's "as of" language assigns hard data to measurement date but permits calculation performance afterward using tools including assumptions; (2) Section 1393 imposes no deadline for assumption selection and Congress's omission from parallel provisions signals intentional choice; (3) "Best estimate" requirement necessitates access to most current data potentially unavailable before measurement date. Implications: Pension plans gain flexibility to select actuarial assumptions after measurement dates using current market data and professional judgment. Employers lose timing-based challenges but retain substantive reasonableness challenges through arbitration. Actuaries avoid artificial deadlines while maintaining accountability through reasonableness requirements. Court leaves open whether assumptions must reflect only information available as of measurement date. The Fine Print: * 29 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)(E)(i): Withdrawal liability calculated based on plan's unfunded vested benefits "as of" the last day of plan year preceding employer's withdrawal * 29 U.S.C. § 1393(a)(1): Actuaries must use "actuarial assumptions and methods which, in the aggregate, are reasonable (taking into account the experience of the plan and reasonable expectations) and which, in combination, offer the actuary's best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan" Primary Cases: * Russello v. United States (1983): Where Congress includes particular language in one statutory section but omits it in another section of same Act, courts presume Congress acts intentionally and purposely in disparate inclusion or exclusion * Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc. (2020): Courts generally decline reading limitations into statutes that do not appear in their text Oral Advocates: * For Petitioner (M&K Employee Solutions): Michael E. Kenneally, Jr., Washington, D.C. * For Respondent (IAM National Pension Fund): John E. Roberts, Providence, Rhode Island. * For United States as (Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent): Kevin J. Barber, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice.

Oral Argument Re-Listen: Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises | Havana Harbor Heist

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. | Oral Argument: 2/23/2026 | Case No. 24-983 | Docket Link: Here [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-983.html] 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. Holding: Havana Docks is not required to establish that the cruise lines “trafficked” in Havana Dock’s property interest. Voting Breakdown: 8-1. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Justice Sotomayor filed concurring opinion joined by Kavanaugh. Justice Kagan filed dissenting opinion. Vacated and remanded. Opinion: Here [Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/23-1209_i3kn.pdf] Majority Reasoning: * (1) Title III imposes liability for trafficking in physical property confiscated by Cuba, not just trafficking in plaintiff's property interest; * (2) "Using" confiscated property concerns physical things, not property interests—requiring one-to-one correspondence between interest confiscated and interest trafficked reads out obvious trafficking forms; * (3) Cuba confiscated both Havana Docks' concession and physical dock structures by seizing control, making docks tainted property off-limits to users. Separate Opinions: * Justice Sotomayor (concurring, joined by Kavanaugh): Flags infinite-recovery problem allowing unlimited repeated recoveries from unlimited defendants for single certified loss; raises due process concerns from government assurances cruises qualified as lawful travel. * Justice Kagan (dissenting): Majority misconstrues statute to allow recovery for trafficking in property plaintiff never owned; Cuba confiscated only time-limited concession, not physical docks Cuba always owned; temporal property boundaries deserve equal respect to spatial boundaries. Implications: Companies doing business in Cuba using American-built infrastructure face substantial legal risk even when original American property interests expired decades ago. Decision preserves Title III as powerful deterrent preventing companies from waiting out clock on expired property interests. Lower courts must resolve whether statute allows unlimited repeated recoveries, whether lawful-travel exception shields defendants receiving government licenses, and whether concession limitations preclude passenger-service liability. 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" Oral Advocates: * For Petitioner (Havana Docks Corp.): Richard Klingler of Ellis George LLP. * United States as Amicus Curiae: Aimee Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice. * For Respondents (Royal Caribbean Cruises): Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy, PLLC. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview [00:01:02] Oral Argument Begins [00:01:12] Havana Docks Opening Statement [00:03:15] Havana Docks Free for All Questions [00:19:05] Havana Docks Round Robin Questions [00:36:46] United States Opening Statement [00:38:14] United States Free for All Questions [00:47:30] United States Round Robin Questions [00:57:21] Royal Caribbean Opening Statement [00:59:35] Royal Caribbean Free for All Questions [01:28:15] Royal Caribbean Round Robin Questions [01:30:23] Havana Docks Rebuttal

Opinion Summary: Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises | Havana Harbor Heist Holds Up

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. | Case No. 24-983 } Oral Argument: 2/23/2026 | Decided May 21, 2026 | Docket Link: Here [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-983.html] Overview: Supreme Court preserves Title III liability for entities trafficking in physical property confiscated by Cuban Government even when plaintiff's underlying time-limited property interest expired before trafficking occurred. Question Presented: Whether cruise lines using Havana docks face liability when plaintiff's concession expired before their alleged trafficking. Posture: District Court granted summary judgment for Havana Docks; Eleventh Circuit reversed applying counterfactual analysis. Main Arguments: * Havana Docks (Petitioner): * (1) Statute's "owns the claim" language focuses on current claim ownership, not hypothetical property ownership in alternate timelines; * (2) Cuba confiscated physical dock structures Havana Docks built, not just abstract concession rights; * (3) Congressional purpose requires deterring companies from profiting off stolen property regardless of temporal limitations. * Cruise Lines (Respondents): * (1) Property law fundamentals require respecting original temporal limits on property rights; * (2) Havana Docks' concession excluded passenger services and only covered cargo operations; * (3) Congress deliberately balanced deterrence against property law principles without providing universal relief. Holding: Havana Docks is not required to establish that the cruise lines “trafficked” in Havana Dock’s property interest. Voting Breakdown: 8-1. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Justice Sotomayor filed concurring opinion joined by Kavanaugh. Justice Kagan filed dissenting opinion. Vacated and remanded. Opinion: Here [Link to Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/23-1209_i3kn.pdf] Majority Reasoning: * (1) Title III imposes liability for trafficking in physical property confiscated by Cuba, not just trafficking in plaintiff's property interest; * (2) "Using" confiscated property concerns physical things, not property interests—requiring one-to-one correspondence between interest confiscated and interest trafficked reads out obvious trafficking forms; * (3) Cuba confiscated both Havana Docks' concession and physical dock structures by seizing control, making docks tainted property off-limits to users. Separate Opinions: * Justice Sotomayor (concurring, joined by Kavanaugh): Flags infinite-recovery problem allowing unlimited repeated recoveries from unlimited defendants for single certified loss; raises due process concerns from government assurances cruises qualified as lawful travel. * Justice Kagan (dissenting): Majority misconstrues statute to allow recovery for trafficking in property plaintiff never owned; Cuba confiscated only time-limited concession, not physical docks Cuba always owned; temporal property boundaries deserve equal respect to spatial boundaries. Implications: Companies doing business in Cuba using American-built infrastructure face substantial legal risk even when original American property interests expired decades ago. Decision preserves Title III as powerful deterrent preventing companies from waiting out clock on expired property interests. Lower courts must resolve whether statute allows unlimited repeated recoveries, whether lawful-travel exception shields defendants receiving government licenses, and whether concession limitations preclude passenger-service liability. The Fine Print: * 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1)(A): "Any person that traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government on or after January 1, 1959, shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property" * 22 U.S.C. § 6023(4)(A): "The term 'confiscated' refers to the nationalization, expropriation, or other seizure by the Cuban Government of ownership or control of property" Primary Cases: * Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964): Cuban Government nationalized by forced expropriation property in which American nationals held interests; confiscation can affect both physical property and property interests * Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002): Property interests defined by both geographic dimensions and temporal aspects; both dimensions must be considered when viewing interest in entirety