A Seat at the Sitting - November 2025

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.

• Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.
• Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (November 4) - Federal Tort Claims Act;Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.
• The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (November 4) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.
• Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton (November 5) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (November 5) - Tariffs, IEEPA; Issue (s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.
• The GEO Group v. Menocal (November 10) - Sovereign Immunity; Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
• Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (November 10) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
• Rutherford v. U.S. (November 12) - First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
• Fernandez v. U.S. (November 12) - Compassionate Release; Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Featuring:

• Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
• Zac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
• Prof. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
• Prof. Erica Zunkel, Director of Clinical and Experiential Learning, Clinical Professor of Law, & Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School
• (Moderator) Logan Spena, Legal Counsel, Center for Free Speech, Alliance Defending Freedom

*******

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.