The Court has decided two important cases today, United States v. Zubaydah, upholding the government’s assertion of the state secrets privilege and rejecting the al Qaeda terrorist leader’s discovery request for information concerning his torture by the CIA, and Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., allowing the intervention of the Kentucky attorney general to assume the defense of the state’s abortion law after the official who had been defending the law decided not to seek further review. Both cases are, at root, about significant issues of public interest and policy—the torture of terrorists and restrictive abortion policies—but neither opinion resolves any such question. Indeed, the lessons learned from each of these cases are essentially procedural, and though the outcomes are determined by significant margins, the alliances of Justices on the multiple opinions published are also instructive.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division: What It Means for Fraud Enforcement in America
- State AGs in Action: Health Care Enforcement in 2026 – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
- The DOJ’s New Corporate Enforcement Policy: A Familiar but Now Nationally Unified Framework for Voluntary Self-Disclosure
- The Case Was Settled, but ChatGPT Thought Otherwise: A Dispute Poised to Define AI Legal Liability
- “Claude Is Not an Attorney”: Individuals Risk Abandoning the Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work-Product Doctrine When Consulting AI