Analysis & Opinions

The Supreme Court allowed Texas to continue enforcing a law requiring app stores to verify users' ages and obtain parental consent before minors can download apps or make in-app purchases. The justices denied requests to reinstate a lower court's orders blocking the law, with no public dissents noted.

The article reflects on last year's busy summer at the Supreme Court, which included major rulings on universal injunctions and a state ban on medical treatments for transgender minors, and asks whether the justices will have a quieter recess this year. It notes that the court typically takes a break from petitions, arguments, and decisions during the summer.

This opinion piece discusses the Supreme Court's institutional resilience and independence in the face of controversial actions by the Trump administration. It examines the court's role during what many observers described as a constitutional crisis, evaluating whether the justices adequately checked executive power.

This opinion essay examines whether the Roberts Court is strategically farsighted or deliberately ignoring immediate concerns, noting an emerging theme in which the conservative side of the court typically prevails on issues of broader significance. The piece references observations made at a Federalist Society event about patterns in the court's recent term.

The article provides a retrospective on the Supreme Court's just-completed term, describing it as momentous, and previews the upcoming term as potentially equally consequential. It serves as a bridge piece summarizing key developments and flagging cases to watch.

Legal commentator Elie Honig argues that the Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices are receiving unfair criticism for being overly political. The piece explores the broader debate about how politically motivated the current Supreme Court's decisions truly are.

The Supreme Court allowed Texas to enforce a law requiring Apple and Google to verify app store users' ages and obtain parental consent for minors, at least temporarily. The ruling keeps the Texas law in effect while legal challenges continue.

Justice Samuel Alito showed no signs of retiring from the Supreme Court despite speculation, having authored significant conservative majority opinions this term on voting rights, immigration, and gun-related cases. The article discusses his influential role in shaping the Court's rightward direction and his apparent intent to remain on the bench.

The article takes a lighter look at the end of the Supreme Court's 2025-26 term, highlighting children's books written by justices. It focuses on Justice Neil Gorsuch's new book "Heroes of 1776," co-written with former law clerk Janie Nitze, and notes Justice Sonia Sotomayor has also written for young readers.

The Supreme Court's 2025-26 term is being characterized as potentially the most consequential in recent memory, particularly for President Trump. Trump was a named party in four major cases and became the first sitting president to attend oral argument, but suffered high-profile losses on tariffs, birthright citizenship, and his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook.

SCOTUSblog published an animated explainer summarizing key takeaways about the Supreme Court from the 2025-26 term, timed to coincide with the nation's 250th anniversary. The piece is a broad overview rather than a discussion of any specific case.

The Financial Times profiles Chief Justice John Roberts and his long-term strategic approach to leading the Supreme Court. The article highlights how, during the most recent term, Roberts steered the Court to defy President Trump on some issues while simultaneously expanding the scope of presidential power in other rulings.

The article critiques the Supreme Court's decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, which blocked migrants stopped at the international boundary from applying for asylum. The author argues that the majority misunderstood the border-crossing process Congress created in federal immigration law, effectively giving border officers unchecked power to deny asylum access.

The article examines the implications of the Supreme Court's decisions in Slaughter and Cook for the future of independent federal agencies. It discusses how these rulings affect presidential power to fire agency heads, potentially upending the longstanding Humphrey's Executor precedent that allowed Congress to shield agencies from total presidential control.

This animated explainer reviews the Supreme Court's 2025-26 term, analyzing which justices were most influential, key judicial alliances, and whether the court's ideological divide is overstated. It is the third in a series of animated videos produced in partnership with Briefly.

The article announces the release of the "Stat Pack" for the Supreme Court's 2025-26 term, compiled by Jake S. Truscott and Adam Feldman. It presents statistical analysis and key takeaways from the term's decisions.

The Supreme Court allowed a lower court's civil contempt finding against former Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge to stand after she refused to reveal confidential sources for articles about an FBI investigation of a scientist. The decision has significant implications for press freedom and journalists' ability to protect their sources.

The article profiles Chief Justice John Roberts's leadership during a tumultuous Supreme Court term, highlighting how he confronted the president, built unexpected coalitions among the justices, and advanced long-sought legal goals. It portrays Roberts as taking charge of a fractured court during a politically charged period.

This opinion piece compiles reader perspectives on the Supreme Court's just-completed term, reflecting on the impact of its major rulings. Readers share diverse views on what the court's decisions mean for the country's legal and political landscape.

The article argues that while the Supreme Court's Slaughter decision was significant, it represents only part of the challenge in constraining executive power. The author contends that Congress must also be compelled to fulfill its role in holding the executive branch accountable.

The article celebrates the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Trump v. Barbara, which struck down President Trump's executive order 14160 that sought to end birthright citizenship. The author praises the court for basing its ruling on the Constitution itself and for affirming equal birthright citizenship for all born in the United States. The piece views the decision as a complete repudiation of the president's attempt to rewrite constitutional guarantees.

The Supreme Court's decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, announced on June 23, shielded both corporations and government officials from civil suits under the Alien Tort Statute for facilitating international human rights violations. The ruling was expected to benefit corporations but unexpectedly also extended protections to government officials. Critics argue the decision effectively grants impunity for acts including torture, extrajudicial murder, slavery, and genocide.

This article provides a statistical overview of the Supreme Court's 2025-26 term, noting that the final stretch looked different from recent years. In past terms, many major decisions ended with a 6-3 ideological split between Republican- and Democratic-appointed justices, but this term saw a different pattern in some high-profile cases involving abortion, affirmative action, and agency deference.

The Supreme Court closed out its term by issuing rulings on birthright citizenship, transgender athletes, and campaign finance on the final decision day. These decisions addressed some of the most politically significant issues of the term. The article provides an overview of the term's conclusion and the major cases decided on the last day.

The Atlantic analyzes a recent Supreme Court campaign-finance ruling and argues it may actually improve American politics. The article takes a cautiously optimistic view, suggesting that while the decision may not be perfect, it is at least not harmful and could have positive effects on the political landscape.

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on women's sports and transgender athlete participation that The Atlantic characterizes as reflecting mainstream American public opinion. The justices positioned themselves at the center of the debate, delivering a decision that aligns with where most Americans stand on the issue of transgender women competing in women's athletics.

The Supreme Court ruled on bans in twenty-seven states prohibiting transgender female athletes from competing on girls' and women's sports teams. The decision was unanimous on the Title IX question but split 6-3 on the equal protection grounds. The article examines the reasoning behind both aspects of this significant ruling on transgender athletes' rights.

Despite pushing back on some of President Trump's signature initiatives, the Supreme Court delivered enduring conservative victories during its 2025-26 term. The justices expanded presidential power and advanced long-sought conservative legal goals even as they ruled against Trump on specific policies. The article characterizes the term as a net win for the conservative legal movement.

Three legal scholars assess the Supreme Court's tumultuous 2025-26 term, debating whether the court's decisions reflect incoherence or independence. The analysis examines the various crosscurrents in the court's rulings and what they reveal about the justices' judicial philosophies. The scholars grapple with how to characterize a term that defied simple ideological categorization.

The Dispatch clarifies what the Supreme Court's decision on mail ballots does and does not mean, pushing back on overreading of the ruling. The article argues the court neither asserted broad state control over elections nor endorsed the slow counting of mail-in ballots. The piece aims to correct misinterpretations of the decision circulating in public discourse.

The Financial Times analyzes the Supreme Court's 2025-26 term, noting that while Trump suffered notable losses on tariffs and birthright citizenship, the presidency as an institution has emerged stronger. The court's various rulings on executive power collectively expanded presidential authority even as they checked specific Trump administration actions. The article frames the term as a paradox where Trump lost battles but the executive branch won the war.

The Supreme Court announced its final opinions of the 2025-26 term, including the birthright citizenship case. The article describes the scene at the courthouse on the last day, noting that most litigants and lawyers in the major remaining cases were not present.

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Barbara to strike down the executive order ending birthright citizenship, as many observers had predicted. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, while Justice Barrett did not join them as some had speculated, making the decision more lopsided than expected.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in several new cases, including one addressing whether the Second Amendment protects the possession of semiautomatic rifles like AR-15s. This grant came shortly after the Court struck down a Hawaii concealed-carry law, as part of the end-of-term cleanup conference orders.

The Supreme Court struck down federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates by a 6-3 vote. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion in NRSC v. FEC, holding that the coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states can exclude transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports teams under federal civil rights laws, resolving cases involving Idaho and West Virginia laws. However, the justices divided on whether the West Virginia law violates the Constitution as applied to the specific athlete in the case. Justice Kavanaugh authored the 29-page majority opinion addressing both Title IX and constitutional questions.

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, ruling in Trump v. Barbara that the order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision, which aligned with every lower court that had considered the issue.

This article previews the final opinion announcement day of the 2025-26 Supreme Court term, with four remaining cases to be decided. It sets the stage for the last batch of rulings before the justices' summer recess.

The article examines relisted cert petitions considered at the Supreme Court's final cleanup conference of the 2025-26 term. This mop-up conference typically occurs on the same day as the last opinion announcements, as the justices dispose of remaining petitions before summer recess.

The Supreme Court added six new cases to its 2026-27 argument docket, including a dispute over proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting, and declined to hear Trump's appeal of the $5 million E. Jean Carroll verdict. These orders came from the justices' final regularly scheduled conference before summer recess.

The article analyzes the Supreme Court's 2025-26 term, noting that while the Court checked some of Trump's executive power, it simultaneously advanced a conservative legal agenda. The piece argues the rulings limiting presidential authority were narrower and more precarious than they might appear.

This article provides takeaways from a transformative Supreme Court term in which the justices rejected some of Trump's signature initiatives, including birthright citizenship restrictions, while delivering major conservative victories on issues like campaign finance and transgender athletes in sports.

President Trump responded to the Supreme Court's ruling upholding birthright citizenship by saying it was 'too bad' and falsely claiming Congress could reverse the decision through legislation. The ruling was a significant rebuke of a core element of Trump's immigration agenda.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases in the fall challenging the legality of state and local bans on AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles. The cases will test whether the Second Amendment protects ownership of these weapons, which are popular with gun owners but have been used in numerous mass shootings.

The Supreme Court's decision striking down Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship effectively ends one of the most aggressive components of his immigration agenda. However, the article notes that hundreds of other immigration restrictions implemented by the administration remain in effect.

The Supreme Court's ruling upholding two state laws barring transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports left transgender rights advocates deeply disappointed. The decision was described as the latest in a series of legal defeats for transgender rights.

The Supreme Court's decision striking down coordinated expenditure limits between political parties and candidates is expected to give the Republican Party a new fundraising advantage heading into the midterm elections. The ruling in the campaign finance case will likely expand the influence of big money in American politics.

Becky Pepper-Jackson, the transgender athlete at the center of the West Virginia Supreme Court case, recently won a state shot put title, drawing criticism from West Virginia's governor. Her athletic success highlighted the real-world stakes of the legal battle over transgender athlete participation.

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump's executive order that sought to ban birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign visitors. The ruling upheld the longstanding constitutional guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil under the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled that states may bar transgender female athletes from girls' and women's sports teams, in decisions involving laws from West Virginia and Idaho. The ruling has broad implications for 25 other states that have enacted similar restrictions on transgender athletes.

Readers respond to a week of major Supreme Court decisions, reflecting on the significance and impact of multiple rulings issued in rapid succession. The letter compilation covers reader reactions to several high-profile cases decided near the end of the term.

An opinion piece argues that the Supreme Court correctly upheld birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The editorial emphasizes that the Constitution's text is unambiguous: anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republican position in a campaign finance case, loosening restrictions on campaign spending. The decision continues the Court's trend of striking down or weakening campaign finance regulations.

The Supreme Court struck down President Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, reaffirming that the 14th Amendment automatically grants citizenship to virtually all children born on U.S. soil. The ruling upheld the longstanding constitutional principle that birth in the United States confers American citizenship.

The Supreme Court upheld bans preventing transgender women from competing in female athletics. The ruling represents another setback for LGBTQ+ rights at the Court, continuing a pattern of recent losses for the community.

The Supreme Court issued a decision touching on the unitary executive theory, which concerns the president's control over the executive branch. The article suggests the ruling has implications for the balance of power between Congress and the presidency.

The Supreme Court rejected President Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship through executive action, dealing a major blow to his immigration agenda. The decision affirmed the constitutional guarantee that children born in the United States are American citizens.

An opinion piece reflects on the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling as a reaffirmation of America's foundational principle of welcoming newcomers. The article frames the decision as a reminder to both the nation and President Trump about what citizenship means under the Constitution.

The New Yorker reports on the Supreme Court's decision upholding birthright citizenship and rejecting President Trump's attempt to end it through executive action. While the ruling preserved a fundamental constitutional guarantee, the article warns that the closeness of the decision suggests the fight over birthright citizenship may not be over. The piece raises concerns about future challenges to this constitutional principle.

The Supreme Court has a small exhibition celebrating the nation's 250th anniversary, focusing on the legal fight for independence. Meanwhile, the justices have been offering their own historical lessons from the bench in recent weeks as the term winds down.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that law enforcement's use of a "geofence warrant" — which directed Google to provide cellphone location data for users near a specific place during a specific time — constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. The case involving Okello Chatrie's 2019 bank robbery conviction was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court upheld, by a 5-4 vote, a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if postmarked by Election Day and received within five days. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Court rejected the argument that federal law requires mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day, a significant ruling ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, preventing President Trump from firing her. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that allowing the administration's position would effectively transform the Federal Reserve's structure, and Cook can remain in her position while her legal challenge proceeds.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down the federal law that restricted the president from firing Federal Trade Commission members except for cause, granting President Trump sweeping new authority over approximately two dozen independent multi-member agencies. The majority held that the for-cause removal restriction violates the constitutional separation of powers.

The Supreme Court declined to hear President Trump's appeal of the $5 million jury verdict in the sexual abuse and defamation case brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll. The petition had been conferenced and rescheduled more than a dozen times before the justices finally announced they would not take up the case.

SCOTUSblog reported that the Supreme Court was expected to hand down eight opinions in argued cases on the day's sitting. This signals the Court is in its final stretch of the term, releasing its remaining decisions.

The Colorado Supreme Court struck down Democratic redistricting ballot initiatives, finding they violated Colorado law by attempting to install a newly gerrymandered map. This is a state-level ruling and does not directly involve the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that state laws allowing mail-in ballots to arrive after Election Day are legal, providing relief to 18 states with similar provisions. The decision represents another setback for President Trump's efforts to impose stricter election regulations.

The Supreme Court placed limits on law enforcement's use of "geofence" searches, which sweep up cellphone location data from devices near crime scenes to identify suspects and witnesses. The ruling establishes that such broad location data collection constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.

The Supreme Court ruled against former Alabama Supreme Court Justice and Senate candidate Roy Moore in a dispute over an $8.2 million jury award in a defamation case. The Court declined to clear a path for Moore to potentially collect the award.

The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether Arizona can require proof of citizenship to register to vote, a case that could open the door to stricter voter registration requirements nationwide. The case comes as President Trump has been pushing for such measures.

After the Supreme Court affirmed that Federal Reserve officials can only be fired for cause, President Trump renewed his threat to "take appropriate action immediately" against Fed Governor Lisa Cook. The ruling protects Cook's position but Trump signaled he would continue pursuing her removal.

In twin rulings, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Reserve's independence by preventing Trump from firing Fed Governor Lisa Cook at will, while simultaneously expanding presidential power by allowing Trump to fire other independent regulators for any reason. The decisions drew sharp ideological lines among the justices.

The Supreme Court upheld the grace period allowing mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day to still be counted, as long as they are postmarked on time. The ruling validates the practices of multiple states that allow such late-arriving ballots.

The Supreme Court rejected President Trump's request to appeal the $5 million jury verdict in the E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse and defamation case. A jury had found that Trump sexually abused and defamed the writer, and the Court's refusal to hear the case leaves that verdict intact.

With final decisions remaining, the Supreme Court is sharply divided on major cases including whether President Trump can end birthright citizenship and fire a Federal Reserve leader. The article previews the contentious rulings expected in the final week of the term.

An opinion piece argues that the Supreme Court's ruling expanding presidential power to fire leaders of independent agencies hands President Trump a dangerous new authority. The author contends the Court is bestowing sweeping powers on a president who often behaves as an aspiring autocrat.

The Supreme Court expanded presidential power over the federal bureaucracy by allowing the president to fire a Democratic FTC commissioner, striking down a nearly century-old precedent that insulated independent agencies from political influence by the executive branch. The ruling fundamentally alters the relationship between the president and independent regulatory agencies.

The Supreme Court temporarily blocked President Trump from firing Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed board. The decision is a setback for Trump, who had alleged Cook committed mortgage fraud as justification for her removal.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the E. Jean Carroll defamation and sexual assault case against President Donald Trump, leaving intact a $5 million civil verdict from a 2023 trial. By refusing to hear the appeal, the Court effectively affirmed the lower court ruling that found Trump liable for sexually assaulting the journalist.

The Supreme Court blocked President Trump from firing Federal Reserve Governor Cook, upholding the independence of the Federal Reserve's leadership structure. The justices ruled that the president cannot remove the Fed governor at will, while issuing a separate decision regarding another top regulator's removal protections.

While the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Reserve's independence by protecting its governors from presidential removal, the article notes that other federal agencies were not afforded the same protections. The decision raises concerns about the vulnerability of other independent regulatory bodies to executive power, even as the central bank's structure was preserved.

The justices' annual financial disclosures for 2025 revealed that Justice Sotomayor received Bad Bunny concert tickets worth over $4,000 and Justice Jackson received a $2,500 painting. The disclosures also detailed the justices' book deals, travel, and teaching engagements.

Apple is challenging a $500 million patent licensing bill at the UK Supreme Court, in a dispute over licensing rates for mobile connection protocols. The case could have significant implications for how global royalty rates are set for essential technology patents. This involves the UK Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Colorado Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the validity of ballot proposals that would redraw the state's congressional and legislative maps ahead of the 2028 elections. Democrats warn that the ongoing delay jeopardizes their redistricting efforts, as time is running out to get the proposals on the ballot. The case involves state-level redistricting disputes and does not appear to be before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Hunter v. United States that a "miscarriage of justice" exception exists to waivers of appeal, which are standard in federal criminal plea bargains. Despite the lopsided vote, the decision masks deep divisions among the justices and is considered the most important criminal case of the term.

This article examines the historical and contemporary instances of Supreme Court justices wading into political commentary. It discusses how the custom of justices refraining from explicit political statements is a matter of institutional norms rather than a strict rule, with justices occasionally breaking that custom over the centuries.

The Supreme Court issued rulings on gun rights, immigration, and pesticide labels, with more opinions expected the following Monday. The article previews the end-of-term flurry of decisions from the court.

The article argues that the Supreme Court is entering an era where it acknowledges that people possess certain rights but simultaneously strips courts of the ability to provide remedies when those rights are violated. This effectively renders constitutional and statutory protections meaningless in practice.

The Supreme Court issued two rulings that bolster the Trump administration's immigration agenda by making it easier to prevent migrants from claiming asylum and to expel lawful refugees. The article characterizes the decisions as enabling a cruel immigration policy.

A 6-3 Supreme Court majority removed key protections for immigrants and asylum seekers, aligning with the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The article details how the rulings diminish legal safeguards that had previously been available to migrants.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could end Temporary Protected Status deportation protections for certain migrants, a decision hailed by immigration hard-liners as a victory years in the making. The ruling caps a long campaign by restrictionist advocates to curtail TPS protections.

Readers express dismay and anger over the Supreme Court's recent immigration rulings, which they see as harmful to immigrants and asylum seekers. The opinion piece compiles reader reactions to the court's decisions.

The opinion piece questions why the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Roberts in particular, is failing to impose limits on presidential power and the current administration. It argues the court is effectively unshackling the presidency from constitutional constraints.

Congress is making another attempt to pass legislation that would install cameras in the Supreme Court and other federal courtrooms. The article weighs arguments about whether cameras would promote transparency or turn proceedings into a political stage.

The Supreme Court ended judicial review of Temporary Protected Status decisions, removing a key check on executive power over immigration. The court also struck down Hawaii's concealed-carry restrictions on gun rights grounds.

The Supreme Court delivered a dramatic session featuring a majority opinion author's unusual rebuttal to a dissent read from the bench. The article previews the day's opinions and highlights the rare courtroom confrontation between justices. Multiple significant decisions were expected to be handed down during this late-June session.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Monsanto in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, holding that federal pesticide labeling law preempts state lawsuits seeking to hold the company liable for failing to warn consumers about potential cancer risks from Roundup. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Jackson dissenting. The decision has major implications for thousands of pending lawsuits against Monsanto's parent company Bayer.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration in a case involving the systematic turning back of asylum seekers before they reach the U.S.-Mexico border. The justices held that this policy does not violate the federal law permitting noncitizens to apply for asylum. The case, referred to as Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, stems from a policy originally adopted in response to a surge of Haitian immigrants seeking asylum near San Diego.

The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, allowed the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for citizens of Haiti and Syria, pausing lower court rulings that had blocked the termination. The decision clears the way for the federal government to remove deportation protections under a program designed to shield foreign nationals when conditions in their home countries are deemed unsafe. The ruling represents a significant expansion of executive power over immigration policy.

The article examines Supreme Court cert petitions that have been relisted for the final scheduled conference of the October 2025 term. It notes that a mop-up conference is likely to follow once the last opinions in argued cases are released, which is expected the following week. The column reviews various petitions covering topics including papers, parents, and procedural issues.

The Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii law that criminalized bringing guns onto private property open to the public without the property owner's specific consent. In Wolford v. Lopez, the justices ruled 6-3 that the law violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms, siding with Maui residents who held concealed-carry permits. The decision will have broader implications for similar gun restrictions beyond Hawaii.

The Supreme Court still has 12 remaining opinions in argued cases to deliver before the end of the term. At least one opinion was expected to be released on this day. The article serves as a brief preview of the remaining major decisions anticipated from the Court.

The Supreme Court rejected lawsuits against Bayer alleging that its Roundup weedkiller caused cancer, ruling that federal law preempts state-level failure-to-warn claims about pesticide labels. The decision is expected to determine the fate of thousands of similar pending lawsuits against Bayer, which manufactures Roundup. The ruling represents a major victory for the company, which has faced billions of dollars in potential liability.

The Supreme Court handed President Trump two major immigration victories, ruling to allow the rescission of Temporary Protected Status deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of people and upholding the policy of turning away migrants at the southern border. The decisions significantly expand executive authority over immigration enforcement. Both rulings were decided by 6-3 votes along ideological lines.

The Supreme Court ruled that asylum seekers standing on the Mexican side of the border are not entitled to apply for asylum in the United States, clearing the way for the Trump administration to resume turning back asylum seekers before they enter the country. The 6-3 decision gives the administration a key tool for border control. The policy had been rescinded in 2021 but the Trump administration sought the flexibility to reinstate it.

This opinion piece criticizes the Supreme Court's decision allowing the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for certain foreign nationals as harmful to lawful immigrants. The author argues the ruling gives the executive branch unchecked authority to terminate TPS designations. The decision affects hundreds of thousands of people who had been living and working legally in the United States.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that migrants are not entitled to apply for asylum while standing on the Mexican side of the border, allowing federal agents to turn back asylum seekers before they enter the United States. The decision clears the way for the Trump administration to resume this border enforcement practice. The ruling is a significant win for the administration's immigration enforcement agenda.

Bayer won a crucial Supreme Court ruling shielding it from lawsuits claiming its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, with the justices finding that federal pesticide labeling law preempts state failure-to-warn claims. The decision overturns a verdict that had become the basis for billions of dollars in claims against the company. The ruling is expected to effectively end or severely limit thousands of pending Roundup cancer lawsuits.

This article analyzes the far-reaching consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which effectively overruled Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by holding that Congress lacked the power to prohibit voting practices with racially discriminatory effects absent discriminatory intent. The piece argues that the ruling's destructive impact extends broadly to the Reconstruction Amendments and congressional power, with implications becoming clearer in the weeks since the decision.

Following the Supreme Court's April 29 ruling that curtailed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais, states like Louisiana and Tennessee have pursued last-minute redistricting efforts. The article discusses growing calls for Congress to legislatively override the Court's decision by banning mid-decade redistricting and partisan gerrymandering, highlighting that Congress can sometimes counteract Supreme Court rulings through new legislation.

The Supreme Court issued five new rulings, with the next opinion announcement day expected on Thursday. The article provides an overview of the Court's latest batch of decisions as the term nears its end.

An unusual coalition of three Supreme Court justices issued a sharp critique of the plea bargain system in a recent opinion that notably included multiple references to orangutans. The article highlights this colorful judicial writing as the Court approaches its remaining blockbuster decisions for the term.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that federal immigration law does not require border officers to have "clear and convincing evidence" that green card holders committed a disqualifying crime before denying them reentry. The decision, written by Justice Thomas, gives immigration officers broader discretion to refuse admission to lawful permanent residents accused of criminal activity.

The Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to tax foreclosure sales, holding that the longstanding practice does not violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause or the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. The case arose from the common situation where tax foreclosure sales produce prices far below what an ordinary sale would yield.

In a related ruling in Pung v. Isabella County, the Supreme Court sent the compensation dispute back to a lower court, agreeing that the baseline for determining "just compensation" is the price obtained in the tax sale, as long as the sale was conducted fairly. Justice Alito wrote the opinion for the court.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Exxon Mobil, allowing its lawsuit against Cuban state-owned companies over the confiscation of oil assets by Cuba to proceed. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the Helms-Burton Act cancels the sovereign immunity that Cuban government entities would normally enjoy, permitting plaintiffs to seek compensation for confiscated property.

The Supreme Court significantly limited the ability of foreign nationals to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts for serious violations of international law. Justice Barrett's opinion held that the Alien Tort Statute only permits lawsuits based on the narrow set of claims Congress envisioned when it passed the law in 1789, and the Torture Victim Protection Act was also construed narrowly.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that former Louisiana inmate Damon Landor cannot sue prison officials who shaved his head despite having a court order allowing him to keep long hair for religious reasons. The justices held that the federal law protecting prisoners' religious rights does not authorize Landor's lawsuit seeking damages from the officials.

SCOTUSblog previewed a busy day at the Supreme Court, highlighting key takeaways from a packed order list and noting the court was expected to announce one or more opinions. The article covered the court's procedural actions and upcoming decisions.

The Supreme Court sided with Exxon Mobil in its lawsuit seeking compensation for oil and gas assets confiscated by the Cuban government in 1960. The Trump administration backed Exxon's position in the case, which turned on whether Cuban state-owned companies could claim sovereign immunity under the Helms-Burton Act.

The Supreme Court barred Damon Landor, a Rastafarian former Louisiana prisoner, from suing prison guards who shaved his dreadlocks in violation of his religious beliefs. The ruling held that federal religious freedom protections for prisoners did not provide a basis for his damages lawsuit against the officials.

The Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit alleging that Cisco Systems helped China target and persecute Falun Gong practitioners, a decision with broader implications for corporate liability in international human rights abuses. The ruling narrowed the scope of lawsuits that can be brought under laws allowing foreigners to sue in U.S. courts for violations of international law.

The Supreme Court still has more than a dozen major decisions to release over the next two weeks, including high-profile cases on birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, and transgender athletes. These remaining opinions are expected to test the limits of the Trump administration's policies.

The Supreme Court ruled that a Rastafarian man cannot sue Louisiana prison officials who shaved his dreadlocks, despite his religious objections. The decision, focused on legal technicalities of prisoner religious freedom statutes, marks a departure from the court's recent trend of expanding religious liberty protections.

Texas urged the Supreme Court to uphold a 5th Circuit order allowing enforcement of a state law requiring age verification and parental consent for minors' access to apps and paid content. The state's solicitor general argued that the digital world is different from the physical world, and noted that half the states have similar age-verification requirements.

The Supreme Court declined to hear several notable cases involving voting rights, the environment, and a trademark dispute connected to LeBron James. The Court also asked for the federal government's views in challenges to a state bar association's leadership allocation and an Oregon prescription drug reporting requirement. These orders came from the justices' June 18 conference.

The Supreme Court sent a Texas murder-for-hire case back to the lower court over a dissent by Justice Alito, and denied review in two other criminal cases that drew written dissents. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented in a case about the role of race in Fourth Amendment seizure analysis, while the three Democratic appointees dissented in a Texas execution case involving intellectual disability claims.

The Supreme Court reversed a lower-court ruling that had granted a new trial to the man convicted of the 1979 kidnapping and murder of Etan Patz, one of the first missing children featured on milk cartons. The order effectively reinstates the conviction. The decision came as part of the orders from the justices' June 18 conference.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a new case for the 2026-27 term involving the ability to sue federal officials for constitutional violations even without a specific statutory authorization (a Bivens-type claim). The grant was announced as part of orders from the June 18 conference, with the Court's final regularly scheduled conference before summer recess set for June 25.

In Hunter v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal defendant's waiver of appellate review is unenforceable if enforcing it would result in a miscarriage of justice. The majority described the circumstances meeting this standard as 'rare' and involving 'extreme cases,' and outlined three general examples that would qualify. The Court did not decide whether the defendant's specific waiver constituted such a miscarriage.

The Supreme Court decided United States v. Hemani in favor of the defendant, who had been prosecuted for possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance based on his regular marijuana use. The Court found that the government's case was insufficient, providing a victory for the defendant but offering limited guidance to lower courts on the broader legal questions involved.

In United States v. Hemani, Justices Gorsuch, Jackson, and Alito each agreed on the outcome of the Second Amendment case but took different analytical approaches. The majority examined justifications behind Founding-era historical analogues, Jackson favored means-end scrutiny, and Alito preferred a narrower ruling focused on the government's failure to support its claims on the record. Despite the different reasoning, all three agreed the government had not met its burden.

SCOTUSblog previewed a new wave of election-related cases heading to the Supreme Court, while also noting that an order list was expected that morning with opinion announcements coming on the following two days. The brief note signals upcoming activity on election law at the Court.

The Supreme Court restored the conviction of Pedro Hernandez, who was found guilty in 2017 of kidnapping and murdering 6-year-old Etan Patz in 1979. An appeals court had ruled in July that Hernandez was entitled to a new trial, but the Supreme Court threw out that decision, effectively reinstating his conviction in one of the most high-profile missing children cases in American history.

The article discusses the ongoing debate about whether cameras should be allowed in the Supreme Court courtroom. It also highlights the Court's latest Second Amendment ruling, which examined historical laws targeting "habitual drunkards" as a basis for restricting gun rights.

The Supreme Court issued a ruling addressing whether individuals who use illegal drugs can be prohibited from owning firearms under the Second Amendment. The Court acknowledged the dangerous combination of drugs and guns while analyzing the constitutional limits on such restrictions.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that lower federal courts cannot review non-final state-court judgments under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Justice Sotomayor's opinion clarified that whether a state-court judgment is final—meaning it is from the highest court of a state and not subject to further appellate review—determines whether federal district courts can review it.

The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Hemani that the federal government cannot prosecute a Texas man for possessing a gun while being a user of illegal drugs. Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion holding that the federal law barring drug users from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment, at least as applied to this defendant.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Hunter v. United States that defendants can sometimes appeal a sentencing condition even when they previously agreed to an appellate waiver as part of a plea deal. The case involved a Texas man who pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting wire fraud and sought to challenge a condition imposed during sentencing; the Court sent the case back to the lower court for further review.

SCOTUSblog reported that the Supreme Court was preparing to release opinions and examined whether the Court is running behind its pace compared to the past five terms. The article previewed upcoming decisions without focusing on a specific case.

The New York Times reported that the Supreme Court narrowed the federal law banning drug users from owning guns, siding with a Texas gun owner who faced criminal charges after admitting to marijuana use. The justices found that the federal gun law violated the Second Amendment as applied to him.

The Washington Post reported that the Supreme Court ruled the government cannot restrict gun ownership based on marijuana use, deciding in favor of a Texas man prosecuted under a federal law prohibiting habitual drug users from owning firearms. The decision found the law unconstitutional as applied to the defendant.

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to block an 11th Circuit ruling while he appeals, fearing he may not be able to recover an $8.2 million jury award if the lower court's decision takes effect. Moore, who was twice removed from his position as chief justice, argues that without a stay, a successful appeal would be meaningless if the money cannot be recovered.

With about two weeks left before the traditional end-of-June recess, the Supreme Court still has 20 cases to decide, many of which are expected to be major rulings. This has raised questions about whether the Court is running behind its usual pace and whether it can complete all its work on schedule. The justices are set to issue opinions on Thursday as they try to clear the remaining docket.

The Relist Watch column reports that as October Term 2025 nears its close, the Supreme Court is working to resolve all relisted cert petitions, including cases related to Bivens actions. The Court has recently issued three grants, several notable denials, and a statement from Justice Alito as it processes the backlog of relisted cases before the term ends.

The Supreme Court may take up an important case concerning attorneys' fees in immigration detention habeas corpus lawsuits, as the Trump administration's aggressive enforcement has led to record numbers of detained migrants. Immigration lawyers have been challenging detention legality at an unprecedented rate, and the case could have significant implications for how legal costs are handled in these disputes.

Haitian nationals involved in a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) case have asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case as improvidently granted (DIG), suggesting the case may no longer warrant the Court's review. The article also promotes an upcoming term-in-review event scheduled for July 8.

Legal journalist Cristian Farias argues in an opinion piece that the Supreme Court should be expected to do more than "the bare minimum" in an era of aggressive executive power grabs by the Trump administration. The piece criticizes the Court for racing toward its summer recess while consequential legal challenges remain, suggesting the justices are not adequately fulfilling their constitutional role as a check on presidential authority.

The Washington Post provides an overview of the Supreme Court's major cases during the 2025-26 term, highlighting Trump-related disputes as well as cases involving gay and transgender rights and campaign-related issues. The article serves as a guide to the term's most significant legal battles that the Court has agreed to hear.

A group of Haitian citizens asked the Supreme Court to dismiss as improvidently granted a case about whether the Trump administration properly ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti. The case had already been argued in late April, but the petitioners now say the court should toss it without issuing a decision. This procedural move would leave the lower court ruling in place without setting a Supreme Court precedent.

An analytical piece explores how Supreme Court precedents effectively lose their authority long before the Court formally overrules them, using Lemon v. Kurtzman as a prime example. The article discusses how the Court gradually sidestepped and undermined Lemon's establishment clause framework over decades before officially abandoning it in the 2022 Kennedy decision. The piece examines the broader phenomenon of precedents dying through erosion rather than explicit reversal.

A reflective commentary looks back at June 2022 as the most extraordinary June in modern Supreme Court history, when the Court issued a series of blockbuster decisions in just nine days. During that period, the Court overruled Roe v. Wade, expanded gun rights, weakened church-state separation, and limited federal agency power. The author uses this historical reflection as context while awaiting significant decisions expected in the current term's final days.

The Supreme Court added three new cases to its 2026-27 term docket and denied several notable petitions for review. The orders were issued on Monday as the Court continues its end-of-term work. No further details about the specific cases added or denied were provided in the available excerpt.

A student group and trade association asked the Supreme Court to block Texas from enforcing its App Store Accountability Act, which requires age verification and parental consent for minors accessing apps and paid content. The challengers want the justices to restore a lower court's orders barring enforcement of the law, which is similar to age-verification laws in about half the states.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear three new cases, including one challenging the constitutionality of Florida's six-person juries, one involving hearings for noncitizens in immigration detention, and one on exceptions to rules about second federal post-conviction relief petitions. The orders also included two dissents by Justice Alito from denials of review in cases involving state laws.

The article recounts the story of Lilly Ledbetter, who discovered she was being paid far less than male colleagues at a Goodyear tire plant and won a jury verdict for sex discrimination. After an appellate court overturned her award, the Supreme Court ruled against her, but her case inspired the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, turning a Supreme Court dissent into federal legislation.

Alabama filed a response to the Supreme Court's order regarding the state's use of nitrogen gas for executions. The article also touches on trivia about the most opinions the Court has released in a single day.

The Supreme Court declined to revive a lawsuit by Carter Page, a former adviser to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, against former FBI Director James Comey. The Justice Department had previously agreed to pay Page $1.25 million to settle other related claims.

The Supreme Court decided Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, rejecting a "rigid" judicial estoppel rule that lower courts used to punish bankrupt debtors who failed to disclose potential assets. The case involved a debtor who did not inform the bankruptcy court about a possible car accident lawsuit that could have generated additional assets for creditors. The Court found the lower court's approach too inflexible.

This article is part of SCOTUSblog's recurring series comparing supreme courts around the world, focusing on the European Court of Justice, the highest court of the European Union. The piece features an interview with NYU law professor Gráinne de Búrca about the role and function of that court. It does not discuss any pending U.S. Supreme Court case.

The Supreme Court ruled in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund that investors cannot bring private lawsuits to enforce the Investment Company Act of 1940, holding that only the SEC has authority to enforce the statute. The sharply divided decision continued the Court's recent trend of refusing to imply private rights of action from federal statutes. The ruling effectively blocks investors from suing investment companies to rescind contracts that allegedly violate the law.

The Supreme Court is considering issues related to nitrogen gas execution, while also releasing three opinions in argued cases on Thursday. The article briefly previews the execution-method dispute alongside the Court's latest opinion releases.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Abouammo v. United States that federal prosecutors can only try a defendant in the district where the crime was actually committed, not where its intended effects were felt. Justice Kagan wrote the opinion, rejecting a lower court's interpretation that the intent element of a federal document-falsification statute allowed prosecution based on contemplated effects rather than the location of the criminal act itself.

Alabama asked the Supreme Court to allow the execution of Jeffery Lee using nitrogen hypoxia, after lower courts blocked the method as potentially constituting cruel and unusual punishment. The case involves an emergency application regarding the use of nitrogen gas, in which a mask is placed over the prisoner's face until death occurs from oxygen deprivation.

The article discusses security measures protecting Supreme Court justices, prompted by a recent swatting incident targeting Justice Amy Coney Barrett at her Virginia home. Police were able to quickly confirm the false report thanks to the 24-hour security detail already present at the residence, highlighting ongoing concerns about threats to the justices.

SCOTUSblog published a brief post noting that Supreme Court opinions are forthcoming, along with a promotion for new SCOTUSblog merchandise. The post did not discuss any specific cases or legal issues in detail.

The Supreme Court denied Alabama's emergency request to allow the execution of Jeffery Lee using nitrogen hypoxia, a method in which a mask is placed over the prisoner's face and nitrogen is administered until death occurs from oxygen deprivation. Lower courts had blocked the execution, finding the nitrogen gas method likely unconstitutional. Alabama's solicitor general had asked the justices to intervene and permit the execution to go forward as scheduled.

The Relist Watch column reports that the Supreme Court acted on only one relisted petition this week, Walters v. Coleman, a habeas case from Virginia via the 4th Circuit. The column tracks cert petitions that have been repeatedly relisted for conference consideration.

The article examines the Supreme Court's inconsistent use of legal "principles" in recent decisions, including a summary reversal in Clark v. Sweeney and Margolin v. NAIJ citing the "party presentation principle," and Justice Barrett's 6-3 majority opinion in Fernandez v. United States, which relied on a different doctrinal concept in a criminal sentencing case.

The article discusses the ongoing debate over Supreme Court recusal standards, sparked by reports that Justice Samuel Alito's son obtained a political appointee position at the Treasury Department. The piece examines whether family members' professional activities should require justices to recuse themselves from related cases.

This article provides an update on legal developments related to tariff refunds and also mentions a new book about a little-known Supreme Court justice who was imprisoned. The piece appears to be a brief news roundup touching on trade law and Court history.

This opinion piece argues that the Supreme Court does not have exclusive authority over constitutional interpretation, emphasizing that the Constitution begins with "We the people" and that popular sovereignty should play a greater role. The article critiques the Court's claim to be the sole arbiter of constitutional meaning.

This article examines how the Supreme Court has weakened the First Step Act of 2018, a landmark bipartisan criminal justice reform law aimed at reducing harsh federal sentences and addressing racial disparities. The piece discusses how the Court's interpretations have limited the act's intended scope of providing second chances to federal inmates serving lengthy sentences.

This explainer article is part of a series examining the Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence. It focuses specifically on what types of weapons qualify as protected "arms" under the Second Amendment, following the Court's evolving framework for gun rights cases.

Former President Trump plans to ask the Supreme Court to review his defamation lawsuit against CNN. The article also discusses an ongoing campaign to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 ruling that established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

This article provides a roundup of the remaining cases and key decisions still expected as the Supreme Court's current term winds down. It serves as a catch-up summary for readers tracking outstanding rulings and upcoming developments at the Court.

The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from an elementary school student who was prohibited from wearing a baseball cap depicting an AR-15 with the phrase "Come and Take It" to school. The court also turned down a death row inmate's appeal claiming racial discrimination in jury selection. No new cases were added to the 2026-27 term argument docket.

The article examines ongoing efforts to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It discusses the denied review in Davis v. Ermold and how Justice Kennedy's retirement and shifts in the Court's composition have emboldened challenges based on religious conscience objections to same-sex marriage.

The article previews a potential Supreme Court case stemming from a dispute described as a "White House ballroom battle" that may soon reach the justices. It also explains how opinions are assigned among the justices at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court issued an unsigned order in an Alabama case that critics say undermines Black voters' rights. A lower court had found the state engaged in intentional racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court's order effectively rewarded the state's conduct, drawing significant criticism from voting rights advocates.

Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia criticized the Supreme Court, saying it has done 'violence' to democracy, discussing what he views as the major moral issues of the current era. The interview touches on his broader concerns about the Court's recent decisions and their impact on democratic institutions. No specific pending Supreme Court case is discussed in the article.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers cannot be held liable for patent infringement based on the prescribing decisions of doctors or pharmacists. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion, which came quickly after oral arguments in April, reflecting broad agreement among the justices.

The Supreme Court upheld the SEC's authority to use disgorgement as an enforcement tool, allowing the agency to force wrongdoers to surrender their profits without needing to prove specific harm to customers. The decision in Sripetch v. SEC was unanimous and is the third in a series of related cases about the SEC's remedial powers.

This opinion piece explores whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt's D-Day prayer broadcast on June 6, 1944, would violate the Establishment Clause under modern Supreme Court jurisprudence. The article uses the historical prayer as a lens to examine current debates about the relationship between religion and government. It does not directly discuss a specific pending Supreme Court case.

This article discusses public opinion polling on whether Americans support expanding the Supreme Court, alongside a note that the Court released three opinions on Thursday. The piece touches on broader debates about Court reform and structural changes but does not focus on a specific case.

The Atlantic argues that the Supreme Court has effectively created a right to discriminate in a ruling involving Alabama, contending that the state gambled on the Court's ideological leanings and prevailed. The article criticizes the decision as a significant rollback of anti-discrimination protections, likely referring to the Louisiana/voting rights redistricting context.

This New York Times opinion column by Jamelle Bouie argues that the Supreme Court dismantled key protections against racial discrimination in voting in an Alabama case under the banner of a 'colorblind Constitution.' Bouie contends this reasoning echoes the judicial logic that enabled Jim Crow–era segregation and disenfranchisement.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against AT&T and Verizon, holding that the FCC's process for imposing sanctions for telecommunications law violations does not violate the right to a jury trial. Only Justice Thomas dissented from the decision upholding the constitutionality of the FCC's administrative enforcement proceedings.

This article explores the Supreme Court's long history of shaping race in U.S. citizenship and immigration law. It references Justice Alito's comments during oral argument in an immigration case about the Department of Homeland Security, highlighting how racial categorization continues to influence legal decisions about who can acquire citizenship or face questioning about their right to live in the U.S.

SCOTUSblog previews upcoming Supreme Court opinions expected to be released, while also noting the Trump administration's announcement of plans for sweeping new tariffs and its challenge to a court order related to refunds.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the SEC can require wrongdoers to disgorge illegally obtained financial gains even without proving that specific victims suffered financial losses. The decision sided with the independent financial watchdog agency, affirming its enforcement powers to collect ill-gotten money.

The Supreme Court upheld the FCC's power to levy fines against cellphone carriers, rejecting arguments by AT&T and Verizon that they were deprived of their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial when the agency penalized them for failing to protect consumer information.

The article examines several cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for upcoming conferences, covering topics including prolonged detention, confessions of error, small juries, and habeas corpus rules. A notable development was the rare summary reversal in favor of a death-row inmate in Whitton v. Dixon, where the Court found the 11th Circuit erred by relying on post-trial DNA evidence.

This opinion piece analyzes how the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais effectively extinguished vote-dilution claims under the Voting Rights Act without explicitly saying so. The authors examine whether the case adopted a new rule for when an electoral map constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, arguing that Justice Alito's majority opinion left key questions unanswered.

The article analyzes internal dynamics of the Roberts Court, noting that while the 6-3 conservative-liberal shorthand explains many decisions, it misses serious disagreements within the conservative majority. It uses Louisiana v. Callais as a key example to illustrate how 6-3 decisions can reflect different kinds of splits on the Court.

The Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to use its preferred congressional map in upcoming elections, despite lower courts having found problems with it. Second Lady Usha Vance also called for "respect" for the Court.

The Supreme Court allowed Alabama to use a congressional map that lower courts found to be racially discriminatory for the 2026 elections. The unsigned order held that the lower court's analysis departed from the Court's April 29 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which made it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail on claims that a map violates the Voting Rights Act.

This Atlantic article by Kate Shaw discusses proposals for reforming the U.S. Supreme Court, suggesting ways to save the institution from itself. The piece also touches on extremism in the Democratic Party and the history of the word "graduate."

This New York Times opinion piece compiles reader letters discussing the Supreme Court during contentious times, with readers weighing in on judicial power and the possibility of implementing term limits for justices. The piece also covers unrelated topics including climate corruption and childhood anxiety.

Justice Clarence Thomas recently became the second longest-serving justice in American history, surpassing Justice Stephen Field's record of 34 years and 195 days. The article examines Thomas's remarkable tenure and his uniquely radical approach to jurisprudence, particularly his willingness to openly challenge and overturn established precedent.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a death row inmate in Whitton v. Dixon, holding that the 11th Circuit improperly considered DNA evidence not presented to the jury when evaluating whether false testimony violated the inmate's due process rights. This was the second time in less than a week the Court sided with a death row inmate, and the case was sent back to the 11th Circuit for reconsideration.

The Supreme Court has been asked to prevent Alabama from using its preferred congressional map, and separately, the Court took up a new case involving the First Step Act. The brief report highlights ongoing voting rights litigation and federal sentencing reform issues before the Court.

Plaintiffs challenging Alabama's congressional map urged the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court ruling that struck down the map as racially discriminatory. They argued the lower court's findings were based on a full record documenting Alabama's racial geography and discriminatory policymaking. The filing came in response to Alabama's appeal seeking to reinstate the map.

The Supreme Court rejected a broad interpretation of the federal compassionate release statute in two related cases. In Fernandez v. United States, the Court ruled that arguments questioning the validity of a conviction do not qualify as 'extraordinary and compelling reasons' for a sentence reduction. In Rutherford v. United States, the Court held that retroactive changes making sentences nonretroactive cannot serve as a basis for compassionate release after Congress decided to limit their applicability.

The Supreme Court added a new First Step Act case to its argument docket for the 2026-27 term and sent a Florida death-row inmate's case back to lower courts for reconsideration. These actions were part of the orders released from the justices' May 28 conference. The First Step Act is a 2018 law aimed at improving federal prison conditions and reducing lengthy federal sentences.

As the Supreme Court enters what is likely its final month before summer recess, 26 opinions from the 2025-26 term remain to be decided. Many of these are expected to be among the highest-profile cases of the term. The article previews the most important pending decisions the Court will issue during this end-of-term sprint.

The article discusses an emerging legal battle over tariff refunds as the Supreme Court enters the heart of its decision season. It signals potential litigation related to tariff policies that may eventually reach the Court. The piece also notes the busy period ahead as the justices work to issue remaining opinions before their summer recess.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Flower Foods v. Brock that the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for interstate transportation workers applies to "last-mile" drivers who don't personally cross state lines, as long as the goods they deliver are on an interstate journey. This means these drivers can bring disputes against their employers in court rather than being forced into arbitration. Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the unanimous court.

An analysis piece examines the Supreme Court's increasing reliance on "common sense" reasoning in its decisions, a trend commentators are beginning to scrutinize. The article highlights the tariffs case Learning Resources v. Trump as a particularly striking example of this approach, alongside other salient areas of law. The piece raises questions about the implications of grounding legal holdings in appeals to common sense.

The Supreme Court released four opinions on Thursday covering cases involving shortening prison sentences, jury selection, and last-mile delivery drivers. The article also notes that a justice was called for jury duty. The opinions appear to include rulings in cases such as Flower Foods v. Brock and Pitchford v. Cain among others from the current term.

The Supreme Court's decision in Pitchford v. Cain is praised as a significant protection of jury rights that benefits all Americans. However, the opinion piece argues that the ruling also exposes how much further the Court and the legal system need to go in safeguarding these rights. The case involved issues related to jury selection procedures.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the target of a "swatting" incident on Wednesday night, in which a false call reporting gunshots was made to provoke a law enforcement response at her home. Police responded but quickly determined it was a hoax and left after meeting with her security detail.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Pitchford v. Cain to throw out a Mississippi man's conviction and death sentence, finding that the trial judge failed to properly analyze whether the prosecutor engaged in racial discrimination during jury selection. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and one other justice.

The article examines the question of whether the Supreme Court's emergency docket (or "shadow docket") orders carry precedential weight, noting the Court has sent mixed signals over the years. It highlights tensions among the justices, with Justice Alito saying emergency orders are not meant to set precedent while the Court has also faulted lower courts for not following its prior emergency docket decisions.

An Alabama redistricting dispute is returning to the Supreme Court, though specific details are sparse. The article also notes that the Court was expected to release one or more opinions in argued cases, with SCOTUSblog providing live coverage.

The Supreme Court ruled that death row inmate Terry Pitchford can challenge the exclusion of Black jurors from his 2006 trial for the murder of a shopkeeper. Pitchford was convicted by a 12-member jury that included only one Black member, and the Court found the trial court's analysis of potential racial discrimination in jury selection was insufficient.

The Supreme Court sided with Terry Pitchford, a Mississippi man who has spent two decades on death row, finding merit in his argument that his conviction was tainted by racially biased jury selection. The ruling sends the case back for further proceedings to properly evaluate whether prosecutors improperly excluded Black jurors.

Alabama has returned to the Supreme Court asking the justices to pause a new lower court ruling that again blocked the state's congressional map as racially discriminatory. This comes just over two weeks after the Supreme Court had previously cleared the way for the state to use that same map. The state argues the map should be allowed despite the lower court's finding of intentional racial discrimination.

The Relist Watch column covers cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for upcoming conferences, noting substantial housekeeping this week with six relists disposed of. The justices summarily reversed in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges, involving a dispute over whether immigration judges' challenge to a government speech policy had to go through the Civil Service Reform Act. The column also touches on topics including New York Times v. Sullivan, service, and sentence credits.

With about five weeks remaining in the current Supreme Court term, this article provides an update on the Court's handling of criminal cases, noting some defense-friendly rulings and a significant case that did not materialize as expected. The piece discusses the distinction between legally significant cases and those that receive outsized public attention, referencing a recent remark by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The update surveys pending criminal law decisions still awaiting resolution this term.

This article analyzes the Roberts Court's track record on the First Amendment, examining how it has reshaped free speech law in areas such as campaign finance, student speech, government speech, and online platforms. It also discusses the Court's transformation of religious liberty doctrine through expanded interpretations of the free exercise and establishment clauses. The piece argues that the Court's speech and religion records tell different stories, with speech cases often being more favorable to claimants.

This piece covers ongoing redistricting drama at the Supreme Court, likely related to Alabama's congressional map disputes and other redistricting cases. It also includes a segment where Amy answers a question about how recusal decisions are made at the Court.

Alabama Republican leaders have asked the Supreme Court to allow the use of a new congressional map that a lower federal court found discriminated against Black voters. The case is part of a prolonged redistricting fight in which courts have repeatedly found that Alabama's maps violate the rights of Black voters. The state is seeking emergency relief from the justices to clear the way for the contested map.

The Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court ruling that had revived a dispute over restrictions on immigration judges' public speaking engagements, siding with the Trump administration. The Court also declined to hear Florida's original-jurisdiction lawsuit against California and Washington over those states allegedly granting commercial driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. No new cases were added to the docket from the justices' private conference.

This opinion piece argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais effectively undermined Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act while weaponizing the equal protection clause, despite Justice Alito's claims that the Court was not abandoning prior frameworks. The author contends the ruling's impact on racial discrimination protections in voting is more significant than the Court acknowledged.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon in United States v. Hemani, a case addressing whether drug users can be prohibited from possessing firearms under the Second Amendment. The decision is anticipated to reignite debates over both the Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence and whether justices apply a different legal standard in cases involving drugs.

This article discusses the increasing length of Supreme Court oral arguments and includes a historical look at leaks from the Court. It reflects on how the Court's internal processes and procedural norms have evolved over time.

The Supreme Court rejected Florida's request to hear an original-jurisdiction lawsuit accusing California and Washington of improperly granting commercial driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. Florida officials had cited the case of an immigrant involved in a fatal crash to support their claim that the other states' licensing policies were unlawful.

The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that had allowed a lawsuit by immigration judges challenging work-related restrictions on their public speaking engagements to move forward. The judges had argued since 2020 that the restrictions violated their First Amendment free speech rights.

This interview with veteran Supreme Court journalist Nina Totenberg provides a historical look at the Court across multiple decades. The discussion also touches on the intersection of IQ tests and the death penalty in Supreme Court jurisprudence.

This opinion piece examines the Supreme Court's notable absence from social media despite regularly deciding cases involving online conduct and digital technology. The article raises questions about whether the Court can or should continue to remain disconnected from the platforms whose legal disputes it adjudicates.

As the Supreme Court approaches the end of its term with major decisions pending, President Trump has been both pressuring and courting the justices. The upcoming rulings are expected to address key parts of Trump's policy agenda, creating a tense dynamic between the executive branch and the judiciary. Trump's shifting approach—alternating between intimidation and flattery—reflects the high stakes of the cases before the Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund that actuaries are not required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to use outdated assumptions when calculating the costs for employers withdrawing from multi-employer pension plans. The decision was largely expected following oral arguments and affirms that up-to-date actuarial assumptions may be used in these assessments.

SCOTUSblog published a historical overview of leaks at the Supreme Court, prompted by a recent New York Times report revealing the inside story of the Court's 2016 order blocking President Obama's Clean Power Plan. The article explores how that order is seen as a key moment in the rise of the modern "shadow docket," through which the Court has made significant decisions with limited transparency.

This article discusses potential reforms to the Supreme Court's "shadow docket" and notes that the Court also addressed several cases, including one involving Cuban confiscation claims, a death-row intellectual disability dispute, and ERISA provisions. The references to a Cuban confiscation case and ERISA provisions likely correspond to cases on the current docket.

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Havana Docks Corporation, holding that the U.S. company may pursue compensation under a 1996 law for its dock operations in Havana that were confiscated by Cuba's communist government over 65 years ago. The decision allows claims against cruise lines like Royal Caribbean that allegedly profited from the confiscated property.

The Supreme Court dismissed Alabama's appeal in Hamm v. Smith as improvidently granted, leaving in place an 11th Circuit ruling that death-row inmate Joseph Smith is intellectually disabled and therefore cannot be executed. The unsigned, one-sentence order means the Court sidestepped the underlying dispute over IQ testing standards for intellectual disability claims.

The Supreme Court once again postponed deciding whether to take up President Trump's appeal of the $5 million jury verdict against him in E. Jean Carroll's sexual abuse and defamation case. Despite the petition being fully briefed since late January, the justices chose not to consider it at their Thursday conference.

SCOTUSblog previews upcoming opinion releases from the Supreme Court and examines the extent to which oral arguments predict the Court's eventual rulings. The piece does not focus on a specific case but rather on the Court's overall pace and decision-making patterns for the current term.

The Supreme Court allowed the Havana Docks Corporation to proceed with a lawsuit seeking compensation for U.S.-owned property confiscated by Fidel Castro's regime in 1960. The Trump administration backed the lawsuit, which targets entities that have profited from the seized Cuban assets.

The Supreme Court dismissed on procedural grounds the case of Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama death-row inmate whose intellectual abilities are near the threshold for being spared execution. The dismissal leaves intact a lower court ruling that Smith is intellectually disabled and therefore constitutionally ineligible for the death penalty.

A Financial Times opinion piece criticizes the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais, arguing that it undermines six decades of Black voter enfranchisement protections. The article contends the ruling ignores established law and overturns longstanding precedent regarding racial gerrymandering and voting rights.

The Supreme Court's "Relist Watch" column reports that the justices granted review in Crowther v. Board of Regents, a Title IX case about whether employees of federally funded schools can sue for sex discrimination. The court has continued its pattern of granting one case at a time from its relisted petitions, while new relisted cases raise issues involving Daubert expert-testimony standards and AEDPA habeas corpus review.

This analysis examines how the Supreme Court selects which immigration disputes to hear, noting that the court's role goes beyond merely resolving circuit splits. Justice Neil Gorsuch discussed the court's case-selection process, and the article explores how the court's immigration docket reflects broader policy and enforcement trends.

An empirical analysis of Supreme Court oral arguments reveals patterns in how justices' questioning behavior correlates with eventual unanimity or division in their opinions. The study examines the justices' interactions during argument to provide insights into decision-making dynamics and to predict case outcomes based on argument-stage data.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has publicly criticized the Supreme Court, though the specific details of her criticism are not fully described in the article excerpt. The article also features an "Ask Amy" segment exploring how common it is for justices to have previously argued cases before the Supreme Court prior to their appointment.

Republican-appointed justices on the Georgia Supreme Court successfully defeated well-financed left-leaning challengers in nonpartisan elections. The challengers had brought issues like abortion rights into their campaigns, but the incumbents prevailed. This article concerns a state supreme court, not the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky critiques the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais, arguing it effectively nullified Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. He highlights a largely overlooked inconsistency between the ruling and the established principle that federal courts should not undermine voting rights protections. The piece is part of a recurring series analyzing the real-world impact of Supreme Court decisions.

Adam White's column examines the Supreme Court's handling of its emergency docket, particularly petitions arising from executive branch actions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's recent remarks at Yale Law School about how the Court should approach emergency petitions from the executive branch are discussed. The piece reflects on the Court's broader approach to administrative law and the shadow docket amid larger institutional challenges.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a sex discrimination case in its next term. Additionally, the Court sent two more Voting Rights Act cases back to lower courts for further consideration, likely in light of its recent Voting Rights Act jurisprudence.

As the Supreme Court faces increasing public scrutiny, justices traveling across the country have been publicly defending the institution's role while signs of strained internal relations have surfaced. Tensions among the justices are becoming apparent through both their written opinions and public remarks. The piece highlights the growing divide on the bench amid a politically charged environment.

This opinion piece argues that the Supreme Court is in urgent need of structural reform, contending that no individual should wield such significant power for an unlimited duration in a representative democracy. The article makes the case for changes such as term limits or other reforms to increase democratic accountability at the nation's highest court.

The Supreme Court added a new case to its 2026-27 term docket concerning whether employees can sue for sex discrimination under a federal law applying to federally funded schools. The Court also sent Voting Rights Act Section 2 cases back to lower courts, over a dissent by Justice Jackson, and declined to hear challenges including a child pornography reporting case against X.

This article is part of a recurring series on notable Supreme Court dissents throughout history. It discusses Justice Robert Jackson's death in 1954 and the circumstances surrounding it, exploring how dissenting opinions have shaped American law and politics.

The Supreme Court declined to reinstate a Virginia voting map, leaving the current map in place. The article also notes that Justice Samuel Alito has pushed back against calls for him to recuse himself from a major climate change case before the Court.

The Supreme Court's recent decision on voting rights prompted swift action in Louisiana and Alabama to redraw their voting maps. The timing of the ruling placed the Court at the center of redistricting battles across the South, with some states already in the midst of primary elections.

The Supreme Court ruled in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties that federal courts have the authority to confirm arbitration awards in cases that are already pending in federal court. This decision clarifies the scope of federal court power under the Federal Arbitration Act, following the 2022 Badgerow v. Walters decision which had limited freestanding federal suits to confirm or vacate arbitration awards. The ruling is significant for arbitration practice as it establishes that cases already in the federal system can proceed to confirmation there.

Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at an 11th Circuit judicial conference near Miami, reflecting on shared national values and his experiences growing up during segregation in Georgia. He discussed the importance of common bonds among citizens and spoke about the deeper friendships he formed on a past court.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II that federal law does not preempt state-law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers. The case arose from a severe truck accident on an Illinois interstate in 2017 that left the plaintiff with an amputated leg and permanent injuries.

The article discusses the norms and etiquette of Supreme Court oral arguments, including the use of profanity, humor, and informal behavior. It was prompted by an attorney's quotation of President Trump's vulgar remarks about Haiti during argument in a case involving Haitian nationals challenging revocation of deportation protections.

The Supreme Court declined to restrict mail access to the abortion pill mifepristone, meaning it will remain available by mail. The court also released two unanimous opinions on the same day.

Republican legislators urged the U.S. Supreme Court to leave in place a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that struck down a constitutional amendment allowing the state legislature to enact a new congressional redistricting map. They argued that the case involved state courts applying state law, making federal intervention extraordinary and unwarranted.

The Supreme Court rejected an effort by Virginia Democrats to reinstate a new congressional voting map that had been drawn by Democrats and recently approved by voters. State officials had asked the justices to intervene so the new map could be used in upcoming midterm elections, but the court declined.

The article critiques left-leaning commentary on the Supreme Court, arguing that critics contradict themselves by simultaneously portraying the conservative justices as partisan political actors and as rigidly ideological. It suggests this internal tension undermines the coherence of progressive critiques of the court.

The Supreme Court denied Virginia Democrats' emergency request to reinstate a new congressional map that would have favored Democrats in the 2026 elections. The denial came in a brief, unsigned order issued on a Friday evening, just minutes after the Virginia attorney general's reply brief was distributed. The decision effectively blocks the use of the new map, maintaining the existing congressional district lines for the upcoming elections.

The Supreme Court issued an order continuing to block a 5th Circuit ruling that would have barred the mailing of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions. Justice Alito had previously temporarily stayed the lower court's order, and the full Court has now extended that hold while litigation continues. This preserves nationwide access to medication abortion by mail for the time being.

This SCOTUSblog opinion piece by Haley Proctor discusses the role of factual determinations in Second Amendment and constitutional litigation at the Supreme Court. Drawing on Chief Justice John Marshall's famous declaration about the judiciary's duty to say what the law is, the article explores how the Court handles questions of fact in its rulings. It is part of a recurring series focused on Second Amendment cases and related constitutional issues.

This article discusses the continuing impact of the Supreme Court's recent redistricting rulings and notes that the Court is expected to release at least one opinion. It also references SCOTUSblog's live blog coverage of the Court's activity for the day.

The Supreme Court allowed continued access to the abortion pill mifepristone by mail, blocking a federal appeals court ruling that would have restricted the FDA-approved distribution method. The decision preserves the status quo for medication abortion access while the legal challenge continues through the courts.

The Supreme Court preserved nationwide access to the mail distribution of mifepristone, the widely used abortion pill, by blocking a lower court ruling that would have restricted it. The decision maintains access to medication abortion, which is the most common method of ending pregnancies in the United States, while the underlying litigation continues.

The Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to use a new congressional map, a decision with implications for the state's upcoming primary elections. This follows the Court's recent redistricting rulings that have had significant downstream effects on state-level electoral maps and voting rights.

SCOTUSblog compiled brief biographies of every Chief Justice of the United States, from John Jay through John Roberts, into a single reference guide. The series originally ran in the outlet's weekday newsletter and was collected in response to reader requests.

The Supreme Court may soon decide whether to take up Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, which asks whether California can require religious preschools to promote other religions. Three California churches argue the state's mandate violates both their free exercise of religion and free speech rights, after the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the state.

The federal government has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari in United States v. Carter, a Fourth Amendment seizure case. The article examines what the author characterizes as the government's inconsistent stance on Fourth Amendment issues, coming shortly after the Court's summary reversal in another seizure case, District of Columbia v. R.W.

SCOTUSblog provides an update on legal challenges related to President Trump's tariffs, along with a discussion of what constitutes a "true threat" under the law. The piece appears to touch on ongoing litigation and constitutional questions surrounding trade policy and First Amendment doctrine.

A New York Times opinion piece argues that the Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais has left the country in a dangerous position. The author contends the decision could intensify partisan tensions and ideological polarization in American politics.

The article discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais, in which Justice Alito's opinion severely weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The piece examines the devastating impact of this ruling and explores possible paths for fighting back against the gutting of this key civil rights provision.

The article explains the legal concept of "true threats" in the context of former FBI Director James Comey's federal indictment for allegedly making threats against President Trump. It discusses relevant federal statutes and how Supreme Court precedent on true threats and First Amendment protections may apply to the case.

The article covers the Supreme Court's handling of redistricting disputes, including its recent ruling in one case and an upcoming battle. It also notes that Justice Alito extended an order restoring mail access to an abortion pill.

Virginia Democrats and Attorney General Jay Jones filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to allow the state to use a new congressional map for the 2026 elections. They argue that the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling invalidating a constitutional amendment granting the General Assembly redistricting power was deeply mistaken on federal law issues.

Justice Samuel Alito extended a temporary administrative stay that keeps mifepristone, a key abortion pill, available by mail nationwide. The stay pauses a federal appeals court ruling from Louisiana that would have required the drug to be dispensed in person. The order buys more time for the Supreme Court to decide whether to take up the case.

Justice Samuel Alito spoke at the 5th Circuit Judicial Conference in Houston, discussing his childhood, oral arguments, judicial security, and his writing process. The remarks offered a rare personal glimpse into the justice's life and work habits. The talk was lighthearted at times, with Alito joking about his public image.

An analysis highlights a significant decline in the number of certiorari petitions filed at the Supreme Court each year, contradicting commonly cited figures of 7,000 to 8,000 petitions. Various official and unofficial sources report conflicting numbers about the court's actual caseload. The piece examines what this decline means for the court's docket and access to justice.

Alabama has asked the Supreme Court to address its redistricting effort in the wake of a recent ruling on the Voting Rights Act. The case involves the state's congressional map and the drawing of majority-Black districts. The article examines the broader ripple effects of the Court's Voting Rights Act decision on redistricting nationwide.

The Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to use a new congressional district map that would eliminate a majority-Black district. A majority of the justices sided with Alabama in a move that could expedite changes to its redistricting plan. The decision has significant implications for minority voting representation under the Voting Rights Act.

Justice Alito temporarily paused a federal appeals court ruling that would have restricted mail access to mifepristone, an abortion pill. The pause extends until at least Thursday, keeping the drug widely available by mail for now. The case centers on an FDA decision regarding how the medication can be dispensed.

Virginia officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore a congressional voting map drawn by Democrats after the Virginia Supreme Court struck it down. The appeal represents a major effort by Democrats to preserve favorable district lines. The case could have significant implications for upcoming congressional elections in the state.

The Supreme Court gave Alabama a major boost in its redistricting fight, with Alabama legislators hoping to strengthen GOP prospects in midterm elections. The decision follows last month's Supreme Court ruling that weakened the Voting Rights Act's protections for minority voters. The case involves Alabama's effort to redraw congressional districts to eliminate a majority-Black district.

Virginia Democrats appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve newly drawn congressional House maps after they were struck down. Some top Democrats expressed little hope that the appeal would affect the upcoming November congressional elections. Democrats may instead focus on running in the existing districts rather than waiting for a court ruling.

The Supreme Court allowed Alabama to use a congressional map that a lower court had blocked as racially discriminatory under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The justices vacated the lower-court injunction and remanded the case for reconsideration, with Justice Sotomayor dissenting in a written opinion.

The article examines whether the Supreme Court will address the legality of nitrogen gas executions, set against the backdrop of the Trump administration's push to restore and strengthen the death penalty. It discusses the Justice Department's defense of lethal injection methods and the broader surge in state-level executions. The piece explores the constitutional questions surrounding alternative execution methods like nitrogen gas.

A SCOTUSblog reporter reflects on the experience of attending every oral argument during the 2025-26 Supreme Court term. The piece offers personal observations and insights gained from sitting through all argument sessions, including cases both high-profile and obscure. It provides a behind-the-scenes look at the dynamics of the courtroom throughout the entire term.

Supreme Court justices are set to testify before a Senate committee, a relatively rare occurrence that draws attention to the relationship between the judicial and legislative branches. The article also features a new segment in which a reporter shares unusual moments from inside the courtroom.

Alabama state officials are asking the Supreme Court to allow them to implement a new congressional voting map, seeking to replace the current one. They cite the Court's recent decision that weakened the Voting Rights Act as justification for the change. The case has significant implications for minority voting representation in Alabama's congressional districts.

The Virginia Supreme Court issued a gerrymandering decision that significantly benefits Republican efforts to build a structural political advantage through redistricting. The ruling is seen as a major boost to the GOP's nationwide redistricting strategy. The article outlines four key takeaways from the state-level decision and its broader political implications.

Alabama has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to use its 2023 congressional map with one majority-Black district, rather than a court-ordered map with two such districts. The request stems from the ripple effects of the Court's April 29 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down Louisiana's congressional map for racial gerrymandering. Alabama argues the Callais decision undermines the legal basis for the court-ordered two-district map that was designed to remedy the dilution of Black voting power.

The article examines the Trump administration's argument in a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) case that Congress gave the executive branch unreviewable authority over humanitarian migration decisions. It contextualizes this claim within the broader history of executive power in immigration law, noting that such sweeping authority isn't unprecedented. The case reached the Supreme Court at the end of last month and could significantly reshape judicial oversight of TPS designations.

Justice Clarence Thomas has become the second-longest-serving justice in Supreme Court history, and this data-driven analysis highlights eleven notable facts about his tenure spanning more than three decades. The article examines Thomas's influence on the court's decision-making through empirical analysis of opinions and oral arguments. It underscores his singular and influential role in shaping Supreme Court jurisprudence over his long career.

The article covers recent activity on the Supreme Court's interim or emergency docket, including various orders and procedural actions. It also provides an update on E. Jean Carroll's ongoing defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump. The piece highlights the court's behind-the-scenes procedural work that occurs between major merits decisions.

Louisiana has asked the Supreme Court to block mail-based access to the abortion pill mifepristone after a federal appeals court temporarily halted an FDA regulation that had significantly expanded access to the drug. The emergency request seeks to reinstate restrictions on how mifepristone can be distributed. The case could have major implications for nationwide access to medication abortion.

Louisiana filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold a 5th Circuit order that bans the mailing of mifepristone, a key drug used in medication abortions. The case involves a challenge to the distribution of the abortion pill through the mail. The state argues the appellate court's prohibition should remain in effect while the legal battle continues.

Justice Elena Kagan denied Apple's emergency request to pause a contempt order in its ongoing legal battle with Epic Games. The application, routed through Kagan as the justice handling emergency matters from the 9th Circuit, was rejected in a brief one-sentence communication. This is the latest development in the long-running antitrust dispute between the two companies over App Store policies.

Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais, arguing it represents the culmination of decades of rulings that have limited the Voting Rights Act. The decision is expected to have a significant impact across the South, affecting election districts that were drawn to protect Black voters' representation. The article examines what the ruling means for the future of the Voting Rights Act and its practical consequences.

Criminal law commentator Rory Little offers a nuanced analysis of the current Supreme Court's composition and previews the case Blanche v. Lau (also referred to as Bondi v. Lau), a crimmigration case involving interpretation of immigration rules. After attending oral argument, Little suggests there is a narrow and straightforward path for the government to prevail. The article provides insights into how the justices may approach the intersection of criminal and immigration law.

This article discusses whether the Supreme Court has finished with the Louisiana v. Callais voting rights case, while also briefly noting a slight delay in the start date for tariff refunds. The piece appears to explore the potential for further legal developments or implementation issues following the Court's Callais decision.

In an interview on "The Opinions," Justice Neil Gorsuch tells columnist David French that the Supreme Court justices find more unity than division despite their varied backgrounds. Gorsuch pushes back against the common narrative that the Court is deeply split, suggesting the justices agree more often than public perception suggests. The conversation highlights the internal dynamics and collegiality of the current Court.

This opinion piece critiques Chief Justice John Roberts' vision of a "colorblind Constitution," arguing that it is based on an idealized version of America that doesn't reflect reality. The article suggests that the primary beneficiaries of Roberts' colorblind approach are those who are already advantaged. The piece likely connects to the Court's recent rulings limiting race-conscious policies, including voting rights decisions.

The article critiques the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down the state's congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The author argues that the ruling effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act's commitment to racial equality in elections. The piece is part of a recurring series on election law and democracy.

The Supreme Court announced it will hear argument next term in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, involving a Catholic preschool's challenge to its exclusion from Colorado's universal preschool program over LGBTQ non-discrimination rules. The article discusses the ongoing vitality of the Employment Division v. Smith precedent on religious free exercise claims. The case was not part of the current tracked SCOTUS docket.

The Supreme Court finalized its Voting Rights Act ruling in Louisiana v. Callais and temporarily restored mail access to the abortion pill mifepristone through an emergency stay. The article also notes that Justice Clarence Thomas is about to become the second-longest-serving justice in the Court's history.

The Supreme Court granted a request to immediately finalize its opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down the state's congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The expedited finalization allows Louisiana to draw a new map in time for the 2026 elections, potentially benefiting Republicans. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply criticized the court's decision.

The Supreme Court agreed to fast-track its decision in the Louisiana voting map case, Louisiana v. Callais, clearing the way for the case to return to lower courts so a new congressional map can be drawn. Louisiana voters had successfully challenged the state's map as an illegal racial gerrymander. The expedited action allows redistricting to proceed ahead of upcoming elections.

Democrats see a political opening on abortion as a legal dispute that could threaten access to the abortion pill mifepristone returns the issue to the Supreme Court spotlight. The case has added urgency to an issue that had recently taken a backseat in Democratic politics. The article discusses broader political implications rather than a specific tracked SCOTUS case.

The Supreme Court cleared the path for Louisiana to redraw its congressional map following its opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened a central element of the Voting Rights Act. The action allows the state to proceed with redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections. The ruling has drawn significant criticism for its impact on voting rights protections.

Justice Samuel Alito issued a stay that temporarily restores mail access to the abortion pill mifepristone, blocking a lower court ruling that would have restricted its distribution. The article examines what this emergency action means for the pro-life movement. The stay keeps current mailing practices in place while the legal dispute continues.

The article examines how the Supreme Court's stance on partisan gerrymandering has shifted over time, from initially condemning the practice as unjust to effectively allowing and even encouraging it through its rulings. It traces the legal and political evolution that led the Court to decline to intervene in partisan redistricting disputes.

The Supreme Court temporarily blocked a lower-court ruling that had reinstated an FDA requirement for in-person visits to obtain mifepristone, the abortion pill. The order restores mail access to the drug while the justices review emergency applications from drugmakers challenging the lower court's decision.

The Supreme Court issued an order restoring mail access to the abortion pill mifepristone for at least one week. The temporary order comes as the justices consider emergency applications by drugmakers seeking to overturn a lower-court ruling that had required patients to obtain the medication in person.

The Supreme Court declined to hear a case brought by NBA Hall of Famer John Stockton challenging the Washington Medical Commission's investigation of physicians who discourage COVID-19 vaccination and promote alternative treatments like ivermectin. Stockton argued the agency's actions violated the First Amendment. The denial was part of a routine orders list from the justices' private conference.

The article examines the Supreme Court's expanded practice of ruling on cases in an unusually expedited fashion, debating what to call it — shadow docket, emergency docket, or interim docket. It explores the broader implications of this procedural trend for how the Court exercises its power. The piece is part of a recurring series on law, ideology, and discretion at the Court.

The article covers multiple legal developments stemming from the Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, including new redistricting-related lawsuits and the Louisiana governor's decision to suspend the House primary. It also addresses an ongoing legal battle over access to the abortion pill.

The Supreme Court issued a voting rights ruling requiring proof that a racial group was 'intentionally' disadvantaged, raising the bar for proving racial discrimination in voting cases. The dissent criticized this standard as making it nearly impossible to win such claims, highlighting a deep ideological clash among the justices over how to address racism in the electoral process.

Two manufacturers of the abortion pill mifepristone have asked the Supreme Court to block a Fifth Circuit ruling that would require the drug to be dispensed only in person. The case, Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana, challenges the appeals court's reinstatement of in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone.

The New Yorker examines how conservative Supreme Court justices have systematically weakened the Voting Rights Act over the past two decades. The article traces the court's decisions that have dismantled key protections from the civil-rights era.

Drugmakers are asking the Supreme Court to restore mail access to the abortion pill mifepristone after a federal appeals court temporarily halted an FDA regulation that had expanded access to the drug. The Fifth Circuit's ruling could significantly restrict how patients obtain mifepristone across the country.

An opinion piece argues that Congress must take action to defend democracy against what the author characterizes as a hostile Supreme Court. The article calls on lawmakers to reassert their authority and push back against the court's recent decisions.

Pharmaceutical companies have asked the Supreme Court to intervene after the Fifth Circuit ruled that the commonly used abortion drug mifepristone can only be obtained through in-person pickup. The emergency request seeks to restore the FDA's regulation allowing the drug to be dispensed by mail.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a case about whether federal pesticide labeling law preempts a Missouri jury's $1.25 million award to a gardener who claimed Roundup caused cancer. The case raises significant questions about the balance of power between state and federal courts in mass tort litigation involving public harms.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a public statement calling her recent remarks about a colleague "inappropriate" and "hurtful," and apologized to Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The incident stemmed from comments Sotomayor made during an appearance at the University, highlighting rare public tensions among the justices.

SCOTUSblog recapped a busy week at the Supreme Court, covering multiple developments including issues related to tariff refunds and redistricting in Louisiana. The recap touches on the court's active docket and recent significant rulings and proceedings.

Following a major voting rights ruling on Louisiana's congressional map, the prevailing challengers asked the Supreme Court to immediately finalize its decision rather than wait the normal 32-day period. The urgency stems from the Louisiana Legislature's consideration of pushing back congressional primary deadlines to allow redistricting under a remedial map.

Readers and commentators reacted to a recent Supreme Court decision that they characterize as another assault on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, stepping backward on the relationship between voting rights and race. The opinion piece discusses the broader implications of the Court's ruling for racial equity in the electoral process.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, a case about whether generic drug manufacturers can be held liable for patent infringement based on pharmacists' independent decisions to prescribe their products for patented uses. The justices appeared skeptical of holding Hikma responsible for the actions of pharmacists it does not control.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Davenport that faith-based pregnancy centers have standing to challenge New Jersey's demands for fundraising information in federal court. Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion, reversing lower courts that had found the centers lacked sufficient injury from the subpoena to bring the case.

The Supreme Court may soon consider whether to grant certiorari in U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops v. O'Connell, a case about how broadly the First Amendment's church autonomy doctrine extends. The article explores the legal reasoning behind the doctrine that prevents courts from interfering in internal church affairs.

This article explains how the Supreme Court's orders list works as a procedural mechanism, sorting cases into those that will receive oral argument and those denied review, along with other administrative matters. Though publicly available, the orders list is not widely understood by the general public.

The Supreme Court decided a major Voting Rights Act case and also heard oral arguments on the Trump administration's effort to revoke temporary protected status for Syrian and Haitian nationals. The Voting Rights Act decision and the TPS arguments were among the most significant developments of the day.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Mullin v. Doe regarding the Trump administration's efforts to end temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian nationals. The justices appeared divided after nearly two hours of oral argument, with no clear majority emerging on whether the challengers' claims should proceed.

Following a Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, a new wave of congressional redistricting is expected that could produce fewer competitive districts and more polarized politics. The decision is likely to reduce voter accountability and reshape the political landscape heading into future elections.

Chief Justice Roberts has long worked to limit the reach of the Voting Rights Act, dating back to his early career as a lawyer and continuing through his tenure on the bench. The latest ruling represents the culmination of a decades-long legal strategy to curtail the landmark civil rights law.

Following the Supreme Court's ruling that Louisiana's congressional districts were unconstitutional, the state is weighing redrawing its House maps. The Louisiana secretary of state announced the House primary election would be delayed, though the Senate primary will proceed as scheduled on May 16.

Democrats who previously championed independent redistricting commissions are now regretting that strategy in the wake of the Supreme Court's Voting Rights Act ruling. The commissions could slow Democrats' ability to redraw maps to counter Republican gerrymandering efforts enabled by the decision.

The Supreme Court issued a major ruling limiting the Voting Rights Act, with the majority arguing the law was a victim of its own success in advancing racial equality and is no longer as necessary. Dissenting justices countered that Congress, not the Court, should decide whether the law's protections are still needed.

The article discusses how a 2015 Supreme Court precedent could undermine the legal basis for the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey on charges of threatening President Trump. The Court had explicitly overturned the legal standard that prosecutors are now relying upon in the Comey case.

The Supreme Court's decision limiting the Voting Rights Act could deliver Republicans additional House seats in the 2028 elections by enabling new redistricting that reduces the number of majority-minority districts. While it is too late for most states to redraw maps for the 2026 midterms, the ruling is expected to result in fewer Black members of Congress.

The Supreme Court's final day of oral argument for the term featured cases involving racial considerations in voting rights and immigration policy. The article also notes that all six Republican-appointed justices attended a White House state dinner for King Charles III, while the three Democratic-appointed justices were apparently not present. The piece previews arguments touching on race in redistricting and the administration's revocation of humanitarian protections.

The Relist Watch column covers cert petitions the Supreme Court has relisted for upcoming conferences. Among the developments, the Court granted review in Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, regarding whether Article III allows administrative tribunals in certain labor disputes. The column also tracks other relisted petitions under consideration.

The Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional redistricting map that had been challenged as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander by a group of non-African American voters. The ruling is a major Voting Rights Act decision that found the map was the product of racially discriminatory line-drawing. The decision has significant implications for how race can be used in the redistricting process.

Wednesday marks the expected final oral argument day of the Supreme Court's 2025-26 term and is also an opinion day. The Court will hear its last scheduled cases and potentially release additional decisions before the end of the term.

The Supreme Court's decision to strike down Louisiana's congressional redistricting map is shaking up the U.S. political landscape, forcing both parties to adjust to a new voting rights framework. The ruling has implications for political maps across the country as parties scramble to respond to the changed legal landscape surrounding race-conscious redistricting.

The Supreme Court sided with an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center in New Jersey in a dispute over donor records, ruling that the organization could bring a federal lawsuit challenging the state's demand for donor information. The case involves First Choice Women's Resource Centers challenging New Jersey officials' requirements regarding donor disclosure.

All six conservative, Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices attended a White House state dinner honoring King Charles III and Queen Camilla, while the three liberal, Democratic-appointed justices did not. The article notes this appearance seemed to contradict Chief Justice Roberts's frequent assertions that the Court avoids even the appearance of political divisions.

Analysis of what the Supreme Court's ruling striking down Louisiana's congressional map could mean for upcoming midterm elections. Democrats stand to lose at least one blue-leaning district in Louisiana, while Florida has approved a redder map and Republicans in other states are considering new district lines in light of the decision.

The article examines the Supreme Court's history of handling humanitarian protection cases, noting the Court has previously allowed the Trump administration to temporarily end such protections while cases are being litigated. This context is relevant to current cases involving Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from troubled nations.

During Supreme Court oral arguments, anti-Haitian remarks made by President Trump were raised in connection with the administration's effort to end humanitarian protections for Haitians. The Trump administration argues its decision was based on foreign policy and national security considerations rather than race, but challengers point to discriminatory statements as evidence of racial animus.

The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's congressional redistricting map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, delivering another significant blow to the Voting Rights Act. The decision could make it harder for lawmakers nationwide to create majority-minority voting districts, further limiting the tools available to protect minority voting power in the redistricting process.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Trump administration's plan to revoke Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians. The case could have far-reaching implications for more than a million people from troubled nations who currently have deportation protections in the United States.

This opinion piece argues that the Supreme Court's ruling striking down Louisiana's congressional map effectively erased what remained of the Voting Rights Act's protections. The author contends that by claiming to disentangle race from politics, the Court has given white voters more power at the expense of racial minorities.

This opinion piece argues that the Supreme Court should act to prevent ICE from engaging in racial profiling during immigration enforcement. The author cites body camera footage that allegedly reveals a disturbing pattern of state and federal officials using minor traffic stops to target Black and brown drivers.

The Supreme Court issued a decision limiting a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which could have major implications for majority-minority congressional districts across the South. The ruling may prompt Republicans to redraw these districts, potentially costing many Black Democrats their seats.

This article provides analysis and commentary on the Supreme Court's recent decision curtailing the Voting Rights Act. The ruling is expected to have significant political ramifications for redistricting and minority representation.

The Supreme Court heard arguments over the Trump administration's effort to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian nationals. Conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the administration's position that it has the authority to cancel these humanitarian protections for migrants.

The Supreme Court ruled that an antiabortion crisis pregnancy center can challenge a subpoena seeking disclosure of its donors' names. The case pitted the center against New Jersey's attorney general and drew support from advocacy groups across the political spectrum concerned about donor privacy and First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's congressional map, finding that the state's redistricting constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act. The decision has significant implications for how states draw district lines to comply with federal voting rights protections.

The Supreme Court appeared likely to further limit the ability of plaintiffs to bring claims in U.S. courts for alleged violations of international law. During oral argument, the justices seemed poised to narrow the scope of such lawsuits, which would restrict foreign plaintiffs' access to American courts for international law claims.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving Monsanto's Roundup herbicide products and whether state-law claims requiring cancer warnings on pesticide labels are preempted by federal law. The dispute centers on the main active ingredient glyphosate and who gets to decide whether such labels need a cancer warning. The case could have broad implications for pesticide regulation and state tort lawsuits.

This empirical analysis examines patterns in Supreme Court oral advocacy, highlighting an exchange involving experienced advocate Lisa Blatt during the A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools argument about disabled students' rights. The article uses data on oral arguments to provide insights into the justices' decision-making and trends in Supreme Court advocacy.

The Supreme Court is set to consider a case about the visa program for seasonal farmworkers, specifically whether the Department of Labor can hold hearings to collect money from employers who violate program terms. The article also notes that the day marks Justice Elena Kagan's birthday.

As the Supreme Court considers President Trump's effort to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's personal ties to Haiti — she has two adopted children from the country — highlight the human stakes of the case. The article explores how those connections may shape the public's perception of the proceedings.

This article is part of a recurring series on influential Supreme Court dissents, examining Justice Scalia's stance on judicial restraint in a case involving NASA and privacy concerns related to background checks. It explores how the case tested Scalia's typical approach to deference and government power.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument in Cisco Systems v. Doe, which asks whether corporations can be held liable as accomplices under the Alien Tort Statute for serious violations of international law. The case involves allegations that Cisco helped the Chinese government surveil and persecute citizens, and could significantly define the scope of corporate liability under the ATS.

SCOTUSblog previews the final week of oral arguments for the 2025-26 Supreme Court term. The article serves as a general overview of the upcoming cases to be heard in the last scheduled argument session.

The Supreme Court appeared divided during oral arguments over whether federal law preempts state-law lawsuits alleging that Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. The outcome could affect thousands of product liability lawsuits against the herbicide's maker.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of geofence warrants, which allow police to sweep up cellphone location data from all users near a crime scene to identify suspects. The case raises significant Fourth Amendment questions about the scope of law enforcement's ability to demand bulk location data from technology companies.

The Supreme Court is considering whether federal pesticide labeling law preempts state-court lawsuits by thousands of cancer victims who allege Monsanto's Roundup herbicide caused their illness. The case represents one of the largest waves of product liability litigation in U.S. history.

The Supreme Court is weighing whether police can use geofence warrants to compel Google to turn over location data for everyone present in a given area at a given time. The case addresses major Fourth Amendment privacy concerns about dragnet-style digital surveillance by law enforcement.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an additional case next term regarding the Department of Labor's authority to hold hearings to collect money from employers who violate the H-2A visa program for seasonal farm workers. The Court also declined to hear a petition from parents challenging a school's gender-identity policy.

The Supreme Court justices appeared divided on whether a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment during oral argument in Chatrie v. United States. Some justices seemed to favor a relatively narrow ruling that would clarify the requirements for such warrants without resolving all the broader issues raised by geofence technology and digital surveillance.

This opinion piece examines growing tensions within the Supreme Court as it approaches a series of major decisions in the coming weeks. The article suggests internal divisions among the justices are becoming increasingly visible, raising questions about the court's institutional cohesion and the potential impact on upcoming rulings.

The Supreme Court will hear Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, a case about patent infringement involving a heart disease medication called Vascepa and its generic substitute. The central question is how difficult it should be to hold a generic manufacturer liable when pharmacists dispense its product for a patented use. Lower courts ruled on the evidentiary standards for establishing such liability.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Chatrie v. United States on April 27, a major Fourth Amendment case about police access to geofence location data. The case could set a landmark precedent on digital privacy and the legality of "reverse" searches, where law enforcement queries broad datasets to identify suspects. It is described as the most important digital privacy case the Court has taken up since Carpenter v. United States.

The Supreme Court will hear Mullin v. Doe on the last scheduled argument day of the 2025-26 term, examining whether the Trump administration properly revoked Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Syrians and Haitians. The case concerns the administration's efforts to end protections that allow foreign nationals to remain in the U.S. when their home countries are deemed unsafe. The outcome could have significant implications for immigration policy and executive authority over TPS designations.

SCOTUSblog published its weekly review summarizing the Supreme Court's activities for the week. The article also highlights a new survey examining the partisan divide in public views of the Court and the factors driving those differences. No specific case from the current docket is discussed in detail.

A New York Times opinion piece argues that Chief Justice John Roberts should not be blamed for the Supreme Court's increased use of the shadow docket, which involves orders and decisions made outside the normal briefing and argument process. The author urges readers to consider how emergency docket practices could be used when political power shifts. The piece addresses broader institutional concerns rather than any specific pending case.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Blanche v. Lau, a case about how immigration officers classify lawful permanent residents accused but not yet convicted of crimes that could lead to deportation. The case involves Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and lawful permanent resident since 2007, and was argued against the backdrop of the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts. The justices spent approximately 90 minutes debating the rights of lawful permanent residents in this context.

The Supreme Court ruled in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation that military contractors do not have absolute immunity for negligent mistakes made in active war zones. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, which arose from a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan carried out by a former Taliban member employed by the contractor Fluor. The decision rejects broad legal protections that military contractors had sought when operating in combat environments.

The Supreme Court ruled in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel that the 30-day deadline under 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(1) for defendants to remove cases from state court to federal court is mandatory and not subject to equitable tolling. This means federal district courts cannot use their discretion to extend the deadline. If a defendant misses the 30-day window, the case must remain in state court.

SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court's handling of relisted petitions, noting the court has done some 'spring cleaning' of cases that had been repeatedly relisted for conference consideration. The post discusses seven relisted cases and their status. This is a procedural update about the court's internal case-management process rather than a focus on any single merits case.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, which asks whether federal pesticide labeling law preempts state requirements that cancer warnings be added to pesticide product labels. The case has massive implications, involving over 100,000 lawsuits and billions of dollars in potential liability related to Monsanto's products. The dispute puts the court at the center of a battle involving the international scientific community, federal and state policymakers, and the pesticide industry.

The Supreme Court issued two new opinions on Wednesday, though the article's description focuses on President Trump's renewed criticism of the court on Truth Social. The specific cases decided were not identified in the available description. The brief report highlights the ongoing tension between the Trump administration and the Supreme Court.

This New York Times opinion piece compiles reader responses to the newspaper's front-page investigation into the Supreme Court's shadow docket — the practice of issuing significant rulings through expedited, often unsigned orders without full briefing or oral argument. The letters reflect public concern about transparency and accountability in the court's decision-making process. The article also touches on other topics including EPA administrator Lee Zeldin and Iran diplomacy.

This article discusses leaked 2016 memos reportedly marking the origins of the Supreme Court's 'shadow docket,' specifically the stay of President Obama's Clean Power Plan. It critiques the framing that the shadow docket is solely a tool for conservative outcomes, noting a prior liberal-leaning use halting Texas's anti-abortion laws.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in Chatrie v. United States, a case about whether law enforcement's use of "geofence warrants" to obtain cellphone location data violates the Fourth Amendment. Okello Chatrie was convicted of robbing a federal credit union in Virginia after police used his cellphone records to place him near the scene. The lower courts rejected his Fourth Amendment challenge, and the justices will now decide the issue.

This article is part of a recurring SCOTUSblog series by Stephanie Barclay called "Ratio Decidendi," which explores the reasoning behind major constitutional decisions. The particular installment discusses the history and origins of the Supreme Court's emergency docket. It does not focus on a specific pending case before the Court.

SCOTUSblog announced a significant new chapter for the website, describing it as a "new day and a new era." The article appears to be an announcement about changes to the blog rather than coverage of a specific Supreme Court case. No particular SCOTUS case is discussed.

SCOTUSblog unveiled a redesigned website following its acquisition by The Dispatch the previous year. The article highlights expanded coverage and the blog's mission to make the Supreme Court more accessible to the public. No specific Supreme Court case is discussed in the article.

The Supreme Court ruled that an American soldier injured in a 2016 suicide bombing in Afghanistan can proceed with a lawsuit against a military contractor. The decision clears the way for the soldier to seek damages, potentially making it easier for service members hurt in combat zones to hold contractors accountable. The case involves questions about contractor liability in military operations.

The Supreme Court allowed a soldier injured in a suicide bombing in a combat zone to sue a military contractor for damages. The ruling is expected to make it easier for troops injured overseas to pursue claims against contractors as private military contracting continues to expand globally. The decision has significant implications for the growing role of contractors in military operations.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of FCC fines imposed on AT&T and Verizon, with the justices appearing skeptical of the carriers' claim that they have a right to a jury trial in FCC enforcement proceedings. The case tests whether administrative penalty proceedings violate the Seventh Amendment.

During oral arguments in Sripetch v. SEC, the justices appeared receptive to the SEC's use of disgorgement as a remedy in securities enforcement actions. The argument suggested the Court may reject the challenge to the agency's authority, which would be notable given the Court's recent trend of ruling against agency power.

Legal commentator Erwin Chemerinsky critiques Justice Clarence Thomas's views on progressivism in a recurring opinion column about the Supreme Court's decisions. The piece analyzes the implications of Thomas's judicial philosophy for law, lawyers, lower courts, and people's lives.

A recurring series on the Supreme Court's emergency docket responds to a New York Times investigation, analyzing what the Times got right and wrong about the so-called shadow docket. The piece uses data to clarify how the emergency docket actually functions.

The Supreme Court added two new cases to its 2026-27 term docket. The announcement came alongside a reminder that the Court may issue opinions soon, with SCOTUSblog planning live coverage.

The Supreme Court appeared likely to uphold FCC fines totaling millions of dollars against AT&T and Verizon for allegedly failing to protect consumer information. The telecommunications companies argued they were deprived of their constitutional right to a jury trial by having penalties imposed through an administrative proceeding.

The article discusses the Supreme Court's shadow docket and includes an interview with Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, while also addressing the historical relationship between Chief Justice Roberts and President Obama. The piece breaks down how the emergency docket functions at the Court.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving a Catholic preschool that was excluded from Colorado's "universal preschool" program, raising significant religious liberty questions about whether faith-based institutions can be barred from public programs due to their stance on LGBTQ families. The case could set important precedent on the intersection of anti-discrimination requirements and First Amendment religious freedom protections.

A legal analysis explores how the Supreme Court's upcoming birthright-citizenship decision may hinge on the legal meaning of "domicile" in immigration law. The article examines how different interpretations of domicile could shape the court's ruling on who qualifies for citizenship by birth on U.S. soil, with significant implications for immigration policy and enforcement.

SCOTUSblog reports on a busy weekend of Supreme Court news, referencing a leak from the interim docket and previewing a packed week ahead at the court. The brief post highlights the fast pace of activity on the Supreme Court beat without detailing specific case outcomes.

Supreme Court justices have increasingly turned children's book authorship into lucrative financial opportunities, capitalizing on their elevated status as political celebrities in a polarized country. The article examines this trend of justices leveraging their public profiles for significant book-related income beyond their judicial salaries.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, debating the proper relationship between state and federal courts. The justices wrestled with confusion surrounding a legal doctrine that governs when federal courts should defer to ongoing state court proceedings.

Confidential internal memos from Supreme Court justices have been revealed, shedding light on the deliberation process behind emergency "shadow docket" orders. These orders dealt with cases concerning the scope of presidential power, offering rare insight into how the justices privately debated and reached these consequential rulings.

The New York Times obtained secret internal memos from the Supreme Court that reveal how the Court's shadow docket — its now-routine practice of issuing major rulings through emergency orders rather than full briefing and argument — originated and evolved. The reporting focuses on how this expedited process was applied to disputes over presidential power, raising concerns about transparency and judicial process.

The New York Times published key excerpts from a trove of secret Supreme Court documents that illuminate the Court's internal workings. The memos show how the justices embraced a secretive, expedited track for making major decisions, bypassing the traditional process of full oral arguments and published opinions.

SCOTUSblog announced it will live-blog the potential release of opinions in argued cases on Wednesday, April 22. The post directs readers to FAQs about the opinion process.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of oil and gas companies in a lawsuit over damage to the Louisiana coast, sending the case back to federal courts. Several Louisiana parishes had sought to hold the companies liable, but the Court sided with the companies on the jurisdictional question of where the case should be heard.

SCOTUSblog published an installment of its recurring series comparing supreme courts around the world, this time focusing on the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. The piece interviews experts on how Brazil's highest court compares to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case concerning the rights of lawful permanent residents who are accused of committing crimes that could affect their immigration status. The case, styled as Blanche v. Lau, involves the due process protections available to green card holders facing removal proceedings.

SCOTUSblog announced that opinions are expected to be released, marking April's first opinion day. The blog planned live coverage beginning at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

The Supreme Court sided with oil companies in Louisiana coastal lawsuits, allowing the cases to potentially be moved from state courts to more industry-friendly federal venues. The ruling addresses the companies' efforts to have environmental damage claims heard in federal rather than state court.

The Supreme Court handed a victory to Chevron and other major oil companies in a case involving environmental damage to Louisiana's coastal wetlands. The decision calls into question a $745 million judgment against Chevron for restoring wetlands damaged as far back as World War II.

The article analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in Chiles v. Salazar, a case involving conversion therapy, exploring the surprising non-partisan dynamics among the justices in reaching their ruling. It examines how the case cut across typical ideological lines on the Court.

This data-driven article from SCOTUSblog's Empirical SCOTUS series examines which pending petitions for certiorari the Supreme Court is most likely to grant next. It uses historical patterns and statistical analysis to predict upcoming additions to the Court's docket.

The article discusses the federal government's pattern of filing uninvited briefs at the Supreme Court, highlighted by an upcoming conference where justices will consider a petition from a Catholic preschool in Colorado challenging its exclusion from a government program. It examines the government's frequent amicus participation even when not asked for its views.

This SCOTUSblog roundup covers multiple Supreme Court news stories, including Justice Sotomayor's apology to Justice Kavanaugh for personal remarks and Justice Jackson's public criticism of her conservative colleagues. The piece aggregates notable headlines and developments from the week at the Court.

Famed magicians Penn & Teller filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court challenging the reliability of "investigative hypnosis" used in a Texas death-penalty case, arguing it constitutes junk science. The brief draws on their expertise in deception and illusion to question whether hypnotically induced testimony should be admissible in capital cases.

An opinion columnist expresses rare confidence in predicting the Supreme Court will rule against the Trump administration in an immigration case, arguing the case fundamentally turns on procedural issues rather than substantive immigration policy. The author suggests the procedural deficiencies in the government's approach make the outcome unusually predictable.

The Supreme Court is repeatedly relisting a cert petition related to a "universal" pre-K program that raises questions about a major religious liberty precedent. The Relist Watch column tracks petitions the court has held over for multiple conferences, suggesting the justices are seriously deliberating whether to take the case.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in Sripetch v. SEC, which challenges the Securities and Exchange Commission's authority to use disgorgement as a remedy in securities enforcement actions. The case is part of an ongoing series of decisions in which the court has scrutinized the SEC's enforcement powers.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Monday in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation, which examines when federal courts have jurisdiction to review state-court judgments. The case addresses the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or a related jurisdictional question about the relationship between state and federal courts.

The Supreme Court's final oral arguments of the term feature major cases involving the Fourth Amendment and immigration law. The criminal law analysis highlights the significance of these closing cases, which could reshape protections against government searches and the legal framework for immigration enforcement.

The daily SCOTUSblog roundup notes that the hosts of "The View" mentioned their familiarity with SCOTUSblog during an appearance by journalist Sarah Isgur. The segment highlights the growing mainstream public interest in Supreme Court coverage.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor publicly apologized after making highly personal criticisms of Justice Brett Kavanaugh during a speaking engagement at the University of Kansas School of Law. Her remarks reportedly targeted Kavanaugh's views in an immigration-related case, drawing attention to internal tensions on the bench.

Justice Sotomayor issued a rare public apology for what she called "inappropriate" personal remarks directed at Justice Kavanaugh in connection with his concurring opinion in a recent Supreme Court decision lifting restrictions on immigration stops. The apology came roughly a week after her original comments, which were seen as unusually pointed personal criticism of a fellow justice.

Justice Sotomayor issued an extraordinary public apology for remarks she made about a conservative colleague, an unusual step that highlights deep internal tensions on a Supreme Court dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority. The rare apology underscores the personal and ideological rifts that have become increasingly visible among the justices.

SCOTUSblog announced it will live-blog the potential release of one or more opinions in argued cases from the current term on Friday, April 17. The post directs readers to FAQs about the opinion release process.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on whether the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial applies in FCC enforcement proceedings that seek monetary penalties. The case examines the boundary between legal remedies that require a jury and administrative proceedings that do not.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup highlights the publication of Sarah Isgur's new book 'Last Branch Standing,' which offers an inside look at how the Supreme Court operates. The post is a general news digest rather than coverage of a specific case.

An opinion piece on SCOTUSblog argues that the Supreme Court is losing its legitimacy, which the author describes as the Court's essential source of power. The article discusses proposals for restoring public trust in the institution amid partisan criticism.

A podcast episode discusses several Supreme Court-related developments, including GVRs (grants, vacates, and remands) in the Sittenfeld and Bannon cases, as well as the Chiles case. The hosts also discuss personnel changes at the Department of Justice, including the departure of Attorney General Pam Bondi. The episode touches on the Chiles v. Salazar case currently before the Court.

SCOTUSblog analyzes the oral argument highlights in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, comparing their previously laid-out arguments with what actually transpired during the hearing. The article examines the key issues debated by the justices over the constitutional question of birthright citizenship.

SCOTUSblog explores the constitutional meaning of "the people" in the context of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. The article examines how the Supreme Court interprets who is protected under this phrase, likely in connection with a case involving non-citizens' gun rights.

SCOTUSblog provides an explainer on how the Supreme Court decides which cases to take up for full merits review, including the certiorari process and additional briefing. The article addresses a frequently asked question about the Court's case-selection procedures without focusing on any specific pending case.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup for April 13 notes the 81st anniversary of President Harry Truman's inauguration and his appointment of four Supreme Court justices, drawing a comparison to President Trump's potential impact on the Court. The post provides a general overview of the day's Supreme Court news and historical context.

There is growing speculation that Justice Samuel Alito may retire from the Supreme Court in the coming months, which would give President Trump the opportunity to nominate a fourth justice. The potential retirement has become a major topic of discussion as election season approaches, with significant implications for the ideological balance of the court.

This article reviews the genre of Supreme Court justice memoirs, focusing on the late Justice Anthony Kennedy's writing. It compares Kennedy's work to other justices' memoirs, such as Justice Neil Gorsuch's, and examines what these books reveal—or fail to reveal—about their authors and the Court.

The article explores how celebrities—including sports stars, hip-hop artists, and magicians—are referenced or involved in pending Supreme Court petitions. It mentions the January oral argument in the Idaho transgender athlete case, where Justice Sotomayor discussed the pressures of public attention on athletes.

This brief daily roundup notes that on April 10, 1869, Congress passed legislation increasing the number of Supreme Court justices from seven to nine, a number that has remained unchanged since. The piece serves as a historical highlight for the day's Supreme Court news digest.

This article from The Dispatch discusses the historical and ongoing tensions between U.S. presidents and the Supreme Court, alongside coverage of the fragile ceasefire with Iran. It examines the broader dynamics of executive power in relation to judicial authority.

This article, part of SCOTUSblog's "Clear Statements" series by Abbe R. Gluck, discusses how legislative history continues to play a role in Supreme Court decision-making despite the rise of textualism. It argues that reports of textualism's complete triumph over legislative history are exaggerated, suggesting justices still rely on it, sometimes covertly.

This article by Erwin Chemerinsky in his "Courtly Observations" series examines the Supreme Court's approach to conversion therapy bans and the broader issue of professional speech under the First Amendment. It analyzes what the Court's decisions mean for the legal landscape surrounding government regulation of professional counseling practices.

This SCOTUSblog daily recap highlights Justice Sonia Sotomayor's public remarks, including her criticism of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The piece also touches on lighter topics such as the justices' reading habits, noting that Sotomayor mentioned reading recent books by her colleagues.

An analysis conducted for the Washington Post finds that the Trump-reshaped Supreme Court has rejected civil rights claims in a majority of cases involving women and minorities, marking a historic shift. The article reports this is the first time since at least the 1950s that the Court has ruled against such claims at this rate, signaling a dramatic remaking of civil rights jurisprudence.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose and county election officials asked the Supreme Court to allow them to proceed with a ballot measure related to political speech. The case arrived on the Court's interim docket, involving a state election dispute over how political speech is handled on ballots.

SCOTUSblog's Daniel Harawa discusses a pattern of the Supreme Court summarily denying cases, effectively closing the courthouse doors to litigants in criminal justice and civil rights matters. The article criticizes the Court's use of summary dispositions to avoid full briefing and argument in important cases.

The article provides a status report on the Supreme Court's current workload and pending decisions, referencing the anticipation around a tariffs ruling that took over a month to arrive. It discusses broader concerns among Court watchers about the pace and volume of the Court's output this term.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup notes the fourth anniversary of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court, marking her historic role as the first Black woman to serve as a justice. The post provides a summary of the Court's activities for the day.

The California Supreme Court ordered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is running for governor, to stop an election investigation in which he had seized ballots from a 2025 special election. The sheriff's actions were based on unsubstantiated claims of election irregularities. This case involves the California Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court.

This SCOTUSblog post reflects on oral arguments concerning the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and birthright citizenship, drawing parallels to Second Amendment litigation. The author argues that the citizenship clause should be interpreted as a living provision rather than fixed to its original meaning.

This recurring empirical analysis series examines Supreme Court data from oral arguments and opinion authorships to draw insights about the justices' decision-making patterns. The piece explores what these data points can reliably tell observers about likely outcomes and judicial behavior.

This SCOTUSblog column on Second Amendment litigation examines the framework for analyzing gun control measures, focusing on who is regulated, what is regulated, and where regulations apply. The piece builds on prior analysis of constitutional standards for evaluating firearms restrictions.

This daily Supreme Court news roundup reports that President Trump continues to criticize the Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs. The piece highlights Trump's latest public message directed at the justices regarding their decision limiting his tariff authority.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is holding elections again after years of partisan battles for control of the court. Liberals are set to maintain their majority regardless of the outcome, with the court poised to hear major cases on abortion, redistricting, and election disputes.