June 12, 2025
Rivers v. Guerrero (23-1345)
Once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a first-filed habeas petition, see 28 U. S. C. §2254, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a “second or successive application” under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 properly subject to the requirements of §2244(b).
Commissioner v. Zuch (24-416)
The United States Tax Court lacks jurisdiction under 26 U. S. C. §6330 to resolve disputes between a taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service when the IRS is no longer pursuing a levy.
Martin v. United States (24-362)
The Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in a suit against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U. S. C. §2671 et seq., and the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) of the FTCA overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout §2680.
Parrish v. United States (24-275)
A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the federal court grants reopening under 28 U. S. C. §2107(c) need not file a second notice after reopening, because the original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.
Soto v. United States (24-320)
The CRSC—a statute providing “combat-related special compensation” to qualifying veterans who have suffered combat-related disabilities, see 10 U. S. C. §1413a—confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the settlement procedures and limitations period under the Barring Act, 31 U. S. C. §3702.
A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279 (24-249)
Schoolchildren bringing claims related to their education under either Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.