New Opinions: June 25th | Four Rulings, One Day: Guns, Borders, Refugees, and Roundup

Overview:

• Four opinions released June 25th, 2026 — one day, across environmental tort preemption, immigration enforcement, executive authority over humanitarian protections, and Second Amendment rights.
• Three of four decisions split 6–3: identical conservative majority, identical liberal dissent, three consecutive times.
• The fourth — a Roundup cancer lawsuit and a $1 million-plus Missouri jury verdict — fractured the usual alliances, drawing Sotomayor and Kagan into a 7–2 conservative coalition while pushing Gorsuch into dissent alongside Jackson.
• Justice Alito authored three majority opinions; Justice Kavanaugh authored one; Chief Justice Roberts joined all four without writing separately.
• Justice Thomas wrote or joined a separate concurrence in all four cases — each one planting seeds for future constitutional challenges to the administrative state, executive immigration power, and federal equal protection doctrine.
• Justice Jackson dissented in all four cases — twice as the author — making her the most prolific dissenter of the opinion day.
• This episode breaks down all four decisions: authors, vote splits, key holdings, Thomas's concurrence roadmap, and real-world consequences.

Monsanto Co. versus Durnell | No. 24–1068

• Federal preemption law (FIFRA) blocks state failure-to-warn tort claims requiring cancer warnings on Roundup's label beyond what the EPA approved.
• 7–2. Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett.
• Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion flagging three structural concerns: FIFRA likely exceeds Congress's Commerce Clause authority; EPA's labeling power raises non-delegation problems; and agency regulations may lack Supremacy Clause status to preempt state law.
• Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Gorsuch.
• Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. versus Al Otro Lado et al. | No. 25–5

• An alien standing in Mexico does not "arrive in the United States" within the meaning of the INA; inspection and asylum obligations don't attach before physical border crossing.
• 6–3. Justice Alito authored the majority, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
• Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion arguing lower courts evaded §1252(f)(1)'s classwide injunction bar through declaratory-relief labeling, and that statutes compelling the President to admit aliens would infringe inherent executive exclusion authority.
• Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Kagan and Jackson.
• Justice Jackson filed a separate dissenting opinion.
• Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. versus Doe et al. | Nos. 25–1083 & 25–1084

• The TPS statute bars judicial review of termination decisions; the equal protection race claim challenging Haiti's TPS termination unlikely to succeed on the merits.
• Justice Alito announced the judgment and delivered the Court's opinion, joined in full by Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh, and except for Part III–A by Gorsuch and Barrett.
• Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion arguing §1254a(b)(5)(A) bars even constitutional claims, that Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) deserves overruling, and that non-citizen immigrants hold no constitutional equal protection rights against federal immigration decisions.
• Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
• Second and D.C. Circuits reversed and remanded.

Wolford et al. versus Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii | No. 24–1046

• Hawaii's law prohibiting licensed carry-permit holders from carrying firearms on private property open to the public without the owner's express consent violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
• 6–3. Justice Alito authored the majority, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
• Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion — joined by Thomas and Gorsuch as to Part II–B — rejecting Hawaii's property-law framing and disqualifying both the anti-poaching and Black Code historical analogues as invalid historical support under Bruen.
• Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.
• Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Sotomayor.
• Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.