Order Summary: Trump v. Wilcox | Order Date: 5/22/25 | Case No. 24A966

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the judgments issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and any further proceedings in this Court.

The underlying case involves the questions of whether the President may remove without cause members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, or whether statutory for-cause removal protections for these agency heads violate the President's constitutional authority under Article II to supervise and control officers who exercise executive power on his behalf.

Holding: The Court granted the stay application. The lower court decisions are on hold until the case fully resolves.

Result: The Justices did not sign the order. Justice Kagan filed a dissent from the grant of the stay application and was joined by along with Justices Sotomayor and Justice Jackson.

Link to Opinion: Here.

I created this episode to highlight and contrast the Justices' questions and comments at oral argument to the written opinion in Kousisis.

While all Justices agreed on rejecting the economic-loss requirement, their different concerns and questioning approaches during oral argument directly predicted the fragmented reasoning that would characterize their written opinions. The oral argument served as a laboratory for testing legal theories that would ultimately prove difficult to reconcile in a single coherent framework, explaining why this unanimous result required four separate opinions to express the Court's reasoning. Specifically:

• Justice Barrett used oral argument to test the coherence of competing legal standards, ultimately crafting a majority opinion that rejected petitioners' approach while leaving significant questions unresolved.
• Justice Thomas used his questioning to explore the specific regulatory context, leading to a concurrence focused on materiality as a limiting principle in DBE cases specifically.
• Justice Gorsuch consistently probed the boundaries between criminal and non-criminal conduct, resulting in a concurrence defending traditional common-law limitations on fraud liability.
• Justice Sotomayor maintained focus on the specific case facts and narrow legal question, producing a concurrence that warns against broader doctrinal pronouncements.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Opinion Summary: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Decided: 5/22/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The Oklahoma Constitution requires Oklahoma to “establish[ ] and maint[ain] . . . a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control.” The Oklahoma Constitution also requires that [n]o public money . . . shall ever be appropriated . . . or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion . . . or sectarian institution.”

Consistent with these constitutional mandates, the Oklahoma Legislature established a type of public school[] established by contract called a charter school. The Oklahoma Charter School Board established a public charter school that fully incorporates Catholic teachings into every aspect of the school, including its curriculum and co-curricular activities.

Following the Board’s predecessor’s establishment of the aforementioned public charter school, the Oklahoma Attorney filed an original action with the Oklahoma Supreme Court to prevent the charter school from operating.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a state can exclude privately owned and operated religious charter schools from its charter-school program by enforcing state-law bans on "sectarian" and religiously affiliated charter schools. The court also held that a charter school engages in state action for constitutional purposes when it contracts with the state to provide publicly funded education.

Questions Presented:

1. Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students.
2. Whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state's charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or whether a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the Establishment Clause requires.

Holding: The entire opinion reads: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 4-4. Per Curiam Opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioners in 24-394: James A. Campbell, Lansdowne, Va.
• For Petitioner in 24-396: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D.C.
• For United States, as Amicus Curiae: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
• For Respondent: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D.C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction

00:15 Question Presented

00:53 Result

01:05 Opinion

01:10 Case Implications