Supreme Court Backs Bankruptcy Trustee In Time-Limited Void Challenge
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that federal courts must apply a time limit when a party seeks to challenge a judgment as void under federal procedural rules, settling a long-running dispute among lower courts.

In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited Inc. v. Burton, the justices affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s 2024 decision, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) requires motions to vacate even allegedly void judgments to be filed within a “reasonable time.”
The case arose after Coney Island Auto Parts, a Brooklyn-area company, sought to overturn a default judgment entered against it in 2015, arguing that it was never properly served. The bankruptcy court and federal district court denied the challenge on timeliness grounds, a ruling the Sixth Circuit upheld.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, emphasized that the plain text of Rule 60(c)(1) — which states that a motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time — applies to motions asserting that a judgment is void. Under the court’s interpretation, the rule’s structure and language foreclose treating void judgments as exempt from timing requirements.

The decision resolves a split among federal appeals courts, with most circuits holding that no time limit applies to void-judgment challenges because such judgments are legally null from the start, while only a minority of circuits, like the Sixth, requiring prompt action.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted during oral arguments that determining whether a judgment is truly void can be complex, and the court’s ruling leaves procedural mechanisms in place to balance finality with fairness.
The ruling is expected to influence civil litigation practice nationwide by reinforcing procedural deadlines for reopening final judgments, even when jurisdictional defects are alleged.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the tariffs on Friday, ruling that Trump lacked the statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement broad trade penalties without explicit congressional authorization.
The case has drawn significant attention as a legal rebuke of a key element of the administration’s trade policy.
Vice President JD Vance sharply criticized the Supreme Court decision, calling the ruling “lawlessness” in a social media post on Friday.
In a post on X, Vance said the court’s interpretation “decided that Congress, despite giving the president the ability to ‘regulate imports,’ didn’t actually mean it,” and described the ruling as “lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple.”
“And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.”
He added, “President Trump has a wide range of other tariff powers, and he will use them to defend American workers and advance this administration’s trade priorities.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling marked a setback for the administration’s signature tariff strategy, which had aimed to address trade imbalances and strengthen domestic production.
Trump responded to the decision by criticizing the court and signaling plans to pursue alternative legal avenues for trade measures.

The tariffs had targeted goods from a broad range of U.S. trading partners and were central to the White House’s economic agenda. The ruling upheld the constitutional principle that significant tariff authority lies with Congress, according to the court’s majority opinion.
Trump stated that the ruling still provided his administration considerable latitude to increase tariffs using other authorities, referencing a line he credited to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent.
George Washington University Law School professor and legal scholar Jonathan Turley agreed that this isn’t over.
The administration can still impose tariffs through other statutes.
“The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It can actually impose tariffs under other statutes,” Turley said, adding that there’s plenty of runway for the Trump White House in this area of economic policy.
Obama Accuses JD Vance Of Promoting ‘Blood And Soil’ Politics

Former President Barack Obama rarely mentions Vice President JD Vance by name, but that changed this week with one of his sharpest public attacks since Vance took office.
The comments immediately fueled speculation that Democrats are beginning to focus more attention on the vice president as Republicans look ahead to the post-Trump era.
Speaking Thursday during a conversation with author Malcolm Gladwell, Obama accused Vance of promoting what he described as a “blood and soil” vision of America, despite being married to Usha Vance, the daughter of Indian immigrants.
Obama made the remarks while discussing the Reconstruction era and arguing that many of the same debates over citizenship, voting rights and national identity continue today.
“We have a politics now that at least one of our major parties has been captured by politics that is not that subtle about suggesting that ‘We the people’ means a certain kind of people,” Obama said.
“When you have the vice president, current vice president, making a speech that is basically a blood and soil version of ‘We the people,’ that it matters who your parents were and how long they’ve been here despite him being married to a daughter of an immigrant himself.”
The phrase “blood and soil” is historically associated with Nazi Germany and white nationalist ideology.

Obama went on to argue that debates over who belongs in America remain central to the nation’s politics.
“That echoes, then, ideas about who can be a citizen, who belongs, who gets to make decisions,” he said.
Gladwell followed by accusing Vance of hypocrisy, arguing that the vice president was making what he called a nativist argument despite his own family’s immigrant background.
Obama agreed.
“That is progress,” Obama said.
“Listen, hypocrisy is progress. It is, because it means that you feel guilty enough to either lie to yourself or others.”
Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to Vance’s office for comment.
Obama did not identify the specific speech he was criticizing, but Vance’s most recent nationally televised remarks came during Independence Day celebrations marking America’s 250th birthday.
In that speech, Vance encouraged Americans to reject what he called a “two-dimensional view” of the country focused only on its historical failures.
“So what I’d ask you to do, my fellow Americans, on our 250th birthday, is to reject the two-dimensional view of your fellow citizens and reject the two-dimensional view of your country,” Vance said.
“Reject the view of your nation that sees only its sins, but not its grace and its greatness.”
He also emphasized that America’s accomplishments were achieved by “a common people working towards a common future.”
Obama has generally avoided making Vance a regular target since the vice president took office.
One notable exception came during the 2024 presidential campaign when then-Vice President Kamala Harris selected Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate.
Without naming Vance directly, Obama contrasted Harris’ choice with the Republican ticket.
“When a presidential candidate chooses a running mate, it says a lot about who they are and what kind of president they’ll be,” Obama said at the time, Fox News reported.
Political observers have increasingly discussed Vance as a potential frontrunner for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination, though he has not announced any plans to run.
Against that backdrop, Obama’s unusually direct criticism is likely to fuel speculation that some Democrats are beginning to sharpen their message against a politician they view as a likely future standard-bearer for the Republican Party. While no Democratic leaders have publicly described their strategy in those terms, prominent figures often begin drawing contrasts with potential future rivals well before a presidential campaign officially begins.
Whether that proves to be the case remains to be seen, but Obama’s remarks marked one of his most pointed critiques of Vance to date and ensured the vice president once again found himself at the center of the national political conversation.