On November 12, 2016, Winston Hencely spotted someone approaching the Veterans Day 5K race at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan who seemed out of place. As Hencely reached out to question him, he felt a bulky explosive vest. Seconds later, Ahmad Nayeb, a former Taliban member hired as a laborer by a Fluor Corporation subcontractor, then detonated the bomb. Six people died, and seventeen were injured. According to an Army investigation, Fluor’s “complacency and lack of reasonable supervision” were “the primary contributing factor[s]” to the attack. Yet when Hencely sued Fluor under South Carolina tort law for negligent supervision, both the district court and the Fourth Circuit dismissed Hencely’s claims on the grounds of federal preemption before he could present them to a jury. This dismissal raises a fundamental question about the scope of preemption in military contexts. Preemption, under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, occurs when federal law overrides conflicting state law, preventing states from regulating in areas where federal authority is supreme or where state law would interfere with federal objectives.

On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. Barbara. The case questions whether Executive Order No. 14160, issued by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, complies with the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.

When it comes to international disputes handled by U.S courts, perhaps nothing gets more complicated than Duran v. United States. The controversy traces back to 1972, when former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos hid $40 million worth of funds in a New York bank account. Today, two parties are seeking to claim these stolen assets: the Philippine Government and 9,539 victims of Marcos’ authoritarian regime, jointly represented by lead plaintiff Jose Duran. The victims endured political imprisonment, torture, military suppression, and other inhumane government measures.

In October 2025, the United States confronted the longest federal government shutdown in its history. When the fiscal year began on October 1, Congress had not enacted regular appropriations. President Donald Trump insisted on major federal workforce cuts and refused to sign spending bills, while Senate Democrats conditioned their votes on extending health-insurance subsidies. With no compromise by the October 1 deadline, a lapse in appropriations triggered the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal officers from “obligating or expending federal funds in excess of the amount available in an appropriation.” Most federal agencies furloughed employees and suspended services; the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) exhausted its $4.6 billion contingency reserve for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) but announced on October 20 that it lacked enough funds to pay November benefits for roughly 42 million recipients.

On October 20, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in United States v. Hemani. The case questions the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that makes it a felony for anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess, ship, or transport a firearm. Interestingly, this is the very same law that Hunter Biden was convicted under in June of 2024 in Delaware. Biden was found guilty of three counts arising from his 2018 purchase of a revolver, during which he allegedly lied on the ATF Form 4473 by denying unlawful drug use. The prosecution argued that, at the time, he was using and addicted to crack cocaine, violating §922(g)(3). While Biden raised a Second Amendment defense, the district court rejected his facial challenge to the statute, citing an existing Eighth Circuit precedent upholding the statute to be a relevant historical analogue to firearms restrictions.