SCOTUS AM

March 3, 2026 — SCOTUS March Madness Day 2

Mar 3, 2026

0303 AM SCOTUS TT·0303 March SCOTUS News Update daily AM YT

SEC v. Musk · 25-cv-00105

Elon Musk bought 9% of Twitter before he told anyone — and the SEC's disclosure case survived his motion to dismiss.

One of the final acts of the outgoing Biden SEC was filing suit against Elon Musk for failing to timely disclose his Twitter stake acquisition, as required under Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act. (The 10-day disclosure window had passed while Musk continued buying shares at pre-disclosure prices.) Despite Musk's attempt to dismiss, the court refused, citing "uncontested facts." A motion for summary judgment was on the table; the March 4 status hearing was expected to be mostly about setting dates for next steps.

Constitutional question: None — securities disclosure enforcement case.

Geo Group v. Menocal · 24-758

GeoGroup ran immigration detention centers, paid detainees nothing for their labor, and tried to avoid the resulting lawsuit by claiming it couldn't be sued — and the Supreme Court said: yes it can.

GeoGroup, a for-profit government contractor running immigration detention centers, was sued by detainees for forced or underpaid labor. GeoGroup moved to dismiss by asserting "derivative immunity" under Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co. — claiming immunity because they were just following government orders. They wanted to appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss immediately (before trial) to avoid turning over evidence in discovery. SCOTUS ruled: Yarsley immunity is action-based, not party-based. It only protects GeoGroup if they stayed within the scope of what the government told them to do — but true immunity attaches to the person or entity regardless of what they do. Therefore Yarsley is a defense, not an immunity, making it not a collateral order. GeoGroup has to wait until trial to appeal. "So sorry, Geo, better start getting that discovery ready."

Derivative immunity

Constitutional question: When does government contractor status confer immunity from suit rather than merely a defense? The Court drew a sharp line: immunity must be absolute (party-based) to justify stopping a trial mid-stream.

MOE NOTES · Legal Accuracy Pass (2026-06-15)

Hunter v. United States · 24-1063

A judge said the words, the prosecutor stayed quiet, and now the Supreme Court is deciding whether that courtroom mistake gave a convicted criminal his appeal rights back.

The defendant signed a plea agreement waiving his right to appeal. But at sentencing, the judge read the required Rule 32(j)(1)(B) advisement — informing the defendant of "any right to appeal" — without the prosecutor objecting or clarifying that the right had been waived. The question: did the judge's statement create a new appeal right, overriding the written waiver? Federal circuits are split: some say you read the statement regardless and it doesn't matter; some say you only read it if the right actually exists, and if you do read it when it doesn't exist, you've created one. Lisa Blatt argued for Hunter; the government's advocate was Zoe A. Jacobi. Bryan previewed this as a good old-fashioned Law & Order question: does a judge's mistake in a courtroom override a contract both parties signed?

Constitutional question: Whether the right to appeal — while not constitutionally required — can be created or revived by a court's procedural advisement even after a defendant contractually waived it.

← March 2, 2026 — SCOTUS March Madness Day 1 March 4, 2026 — SCOTUS March Madness Day 3 →