The Supreme Court issued opinions in three cases Tuesday while wrapping up its January sitting with oral arguments in several high-profile matters, continuing the court's steady pace through the 2024-25 term.
The court's most notable ruling came in *Berk v. Choy*, where the justices held that Delaware's medical malpractice affidavit requirement does not apply in federal court. The Delaware law requires plaintiffs suing for medical malpractice to provide an affidavit from a medical professional attesting to the lawsuit's merit before proceeding. The Supreme Court's decision clarifies the boundaries between state procedural requirements and federal court jurisdiction, reinforcing that federal courts operate under federal rules even when hearing state law claims.
In *Ellingburg v. United States*, the court addressed the constitutional implications of criminal restitution orders. The justices held that restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 constitutes criminal punishment for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause. This ruling affects how courts can apply restitution requirements retroactively and provides important guidance on the constitutional boundaries of victim compensation in criminal cases.
The third opinion, *Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton*, focused on civil procedure timing requirements. The court held that the reasonable-time limit outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) applies to motions alleging that a judgment is void. This decision clarifies procedural deadlines for challenging court judgments and reinforces the importance of timely action in civil litigation.
The week's oral arguments covered diverse legal territory. The court heard *Wolford v. Lopez*, examining questions of federal jurisdiction and procedural requirements. The justices also considered *M&K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund*, a case involving employee benefits and pension fund obligations. Perhaps most notably, the court heard arguments in *Trump v. Cook*, though details of the specific legal issues remain limited from the available information.
These developments mark the conclusion of the court's January sitting, a traditionally busy period as the justices work through cases accepted for review earlier in the term. The court operates on a schedule that includes several argument sessions throughout the term, with January typically featuring significant cases that will be decided by the end of the term in late June or early July.
The timing of Tuesday's opinion releases follows the court's typical pattern of issuing decisions during argument weeks. The justices often use these weeks to clear completed cases from their docket while hearing new arguments. The court has not yet announced when it will next release opinions, though observers expect the next opinion day could come as early as next Friday if the court follows its established patterns.
Today, the justices will convene for a private conference to discuss pending cases and vote on petitions for review. These conferences, held away from public view, allow the justices to deliberate on which cases merit the court's attention from among the thousands of petitions filed each term. Results from today's conference may become known as soon as this afternoon if the court adds additional cases to its oral argument docket.
The court is scheduled to release an order list Monday at 9:30 a.m., which will detail actions taken on pending petitions and provide updates on the court's docket management. These order lists often include grants of certiorari for new cases, denials of review petitions, and other administrative actions that guide the court's workflow.
The three opinions released Tuesday demonstrate the court's continued engagement with fundamental questions of federal-state relations, constitutional criminal procedure, and civil litigation management. The *Berk* decision particularly highlights ongoing tensions between state regulatory schemes and federal court authority, an issue that frequently arises as states implement specialized procedural requirements for certain types of litigation.
The *Ellingburg* ruling on criminal restitution adds to the court's body of work on constitutional limitations in criminal sentencing, while the *Coney Island* decision reinforces procedural discipline in federal civil litigation. Together, these cases reflect the court's role in maintaining consistency across the federal judicial system while respecting appropriate boundaries between federal and state authority.
As the court moves forward through its term, these January decisions will likely influence lower court interpretations and provide guidance for practitioners navigating similar legal questions. The completion of the January sitting sets the stage for continued argument sessions and opinion releases as the court works toward resolving all cases by the traditional end-of-term deadline in late June.