Analysis & Opinions

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.

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.

The Supreme Court allowed Steve Bannon to proceed with efforts to dismiss the criminal charges against him for defying a congressional subpoena related to the January 6 investigation. The Court also added a new case involving veterans' benefit laws to its docket for the 2026-27 term.

SCOTUSblog published an opinion piece by Edward B. Foley exploring an alternative to originalism as a method of constitutional interpretation. The article is part of a recurring series on election law and the relationship between law and democracy, and does not focus on a specific pending Supreme Court case.

SCOTUSblog examined the inner workings of the Supreme Court's emergency or "shadow" docket, where parties seek urgent orders often without full briefing or oral argument. The article explores what actually happens procedurally when emergency requests reach the Court.

SCOTUSblog's daily recap for April 6 highlighted historical and current Supreme Court activity, noting that on this date in 1938 the Court heard argument in United States v. Carolene Products regarding interstate shipping of filled milk. The post provides a roundup of the day's Court-related news.

The Supreme Court cleared the way for the dismissal of Steve Bannon's criminal conviction for contempt of Congress. Bannon, a former close aide to President Trump, had been convicted for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena issued by the House committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack.

The Supreme Court sided with Steve Bannon in his effort to dismiss his conviction stemming from his defiance of a subpoena from the House January 6 committee. Bannon, an influential right-wing podcaster and former Trump adviser, had served four months in prison for the contempt-of-Congress conviction.

The Supreme Court disclosed that Justice Samuel Alito was hospitalized on March 20, approximately two weeks before the announcement. The hospitalization was described as precautionary, taken at the recommendation of his security detail.

SCOTUSblog's Empirical SCOTUS series analyzes what the oral arguments revealed in the birthright citizenship case. The analysis uses data from the justices' questions and behavior during argument to predict possible outcomes in the case.

The article profiles Chief Justice John Roberts, examining his public persona and recent rare public remarks at Rice University in which he rebuked personal attacks on members of the judiciary. The piece explores the difficulty of reading Roberts's judicial and institutional motivations.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup for April 3 highlights various Supreme Court news items, including a mention of comedian John Mulaney giving the blog a shoutout on late-night television while describing himself as a Supreme Court argument enthusiast.

The New York Times reports that Justice Alito was taken to the hospital last month in an incident that was not disclosed at the time. The article notes that Supreme Court justices are not required to release health information, and disclosure practices vary among individual justices.

The liberal advocacy group Demand Justice is warning that President Trump could potentially fill two more Supreme Court vacancies. The group plans to use this possibility as a campaign issue against Republican Senate candidates in upcoming elections.

This opinion piece examines the legality and propriety of political pressure and public intimidation directed at the Supreme Court. The article argues that while the political environment may be new, the constitutional framework governing the judiciary's independence remains unchanged.

The Washington Post reports that Justice Alito felt ill at an event in Philadelphia in March and was examined by a doctor. His security detail recommended the medical examination out of an abundance of caution before his three-hour drive home.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case brought by death-row inmate Terry Pitchford, who claims a Mississippi district attorney engaged in racial discrimination during jury selection. The justices appeared sympathetic to Pitchford's challenge, which centers on constitutional protections against racial bias in the jury selection process.

SCOTUSblog published an installment in its comparative supreme courts series, this time examining the Supreme Court of India and how it compares to the U.S. Supreme Court. The article features interviews with experts on the Indian court's structure and decision-making processes.

This article is part of SCOTUSblog's Empirical SCOTUS series by Adam Feldman, analyzing Supreme Court data from opinions and oral arguments. It examines which justices are driving the conversation at the Court, offering insights into their decision-making dynamics.

The SCOTUStoday newsletter recaps a historic day at the Supreme Court when President Donald Trump became the first sitting president to attend oral argument. The newsletter provides a roundup of the day's events and proceedings at the Court.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a birthright citizenship case brought by the Trump administration, and reporting suggests the president is likely to lose. However, the justices may rule on narrow grounds that could allow Congress to revisit the question of birthright citizenship in the future, giving respectful consideration to what was once considered a fringe legal theory.

The Dispatch covered the Supreme Court's oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case, which challenges constitutional guarantees of citizenship for people born on U.S. soil. The article was part of a broader news roundup that also included other major stories of the day.

President Donald Trump attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, marking an unprecedented presidential visit to the court during argument. Some reporters were initially skeptical that the president would actually show up after he announced the plan.

The Supreme Court appeared likely to rule against the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship through executive order. The justices seemed skeptical of the government's arguments that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to those born on U.S. soil could be narrowed by presidential action.

A special broadcast of the Advisory Opinions podcast discusses oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, which concerns the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. The episode provides analysis following the conclusion of the arguments.

SCOTUSblog hosted a live blog covering the Supreme Court's oral argument in Trump v. Barbara on April 1. The case concerns whether President Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship is constitutional under the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a criminal venue case and the justices appeared skeptical of the federal government's argument that a defendant can be tried not only where the offense occurred but also where the crime's "contemplated effects" are felt. The case concerns the scope of permissible federal prosecution venues.

SCOTUSblog's daily summary previewed the day's Supreme Court activities, centered on oral argument in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. The court was set to hear arguments about the constitutionality of Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship.

Immigrant families watched cautiously as the Supreme Court heard arguments over whether President Trump can limit birthright citizenship through executive action. Many families considered what the court's eventual decision could mean for future generations of Americans born to immigrant parents.

The article highlights five key takeaways from the Supreme Court's oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case. The justices grappled with questions about domiciles and foundlings, largely avoided policy debates, and considered the breadth of possible rulings.

The article addresses the question of whether the Supreme Court has already considered the birthright citizenship issue before, providing context for the current case. It likely discusses prior precedent, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in relation to Trump v. Barbara.

President Trump made an unprecedented visit to the Supreme Court to attend oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case bearing his name. His presence placed him face to face with justices whom he has previously attempted to pressure and criticize publicly.

The article profiles the lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court in defense of birthright citizenship, who is herself a birthright citizen. She has dedicated much of her legal career to defending immigrants' rights in America.

Readers respond to a recent Supreme Court ruling related to gay conversion therapy, with the opinion section featuring letters discussing the justices' decision. The article also includes reader responses on an immigrant's story and other topics.

President Trump attended the Supreme Court hearing on his birthright citizenship executive order, sitting silently in the public gallery as a spectator. Notably, his name was not directly mentioned during the arguments despite the case bearing his name.

The Supreme Court appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's arguments to end birthright citizenship during oral arguments. The justices seemed poised to reject government claims that the president can deny citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to parents without permanent immigration status.

President Trump announced plans to attend the Supreme Court oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case. The article previews his unprecedented visit to the court for the hearing on his own executive order.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship case with President Trump in attendance, in a case that could fundamentally redefine who is considered an American citizen. The potential impact has not been seen in more than 150 years, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

The article covers oral arguments at the Supreme Court over whether President Trump can end birthright citizenship via executive order. The case tests whether the president has the authority to reinterpret the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause without a constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court signaled doubts about President Trump's attempt to challenge birthright citizenship by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. Trump attended the proceedings as justices questioned the government's legal arguments for narrowing the constitutional guarantee of citizenship to those born on U.S. soil.

This article presents a moot-court exercise imagining tough questions for challengers of Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, following a prior column that grilled the Solicitor General. It explores the strongest legal arguments against the government's position on the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

SCOTUSblog's Relist Watch column examines cert petitions relisted for an upcoming Supreme Court conference, highlighting a veterans benefits case as a strong consensus candidate for certiorari. The column notes a relatively quiet week for relisted petitions.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a therapist challenging Colorado's ban on "conversion therapy" for minors, sending the case back for further proceedings. The decision casts doubt on the constitutionality of similar bans in numerous states that restrict treatment aimed at changing a client's sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, with justices expressing uncertainty about whether federal courts have jurisdiction to confirm arbitration awards. The case concerns the scope of federal court authority to enforce arbitration outcomes.

This recurring criminal law column previews two important weeks at the Supreme Court for criminal law, covering recent and upcoming cases at the intersection of the Court and criminal justice. It highlights key developments and upcoming arguments in criminal cases on the docket.

This analysis argues that the Trump administration's recent wins in immigration enforcement cases at the Supreme Court should not be read as predicting success in the birthright citizenship challenge. The article distinguishes the legal issues in deportation and removal cases from the constitutional questions surrounding the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

SCOTUSblog's daily briefing previews what is expected to be the fourth opinion day of the month at the Supreme Court, with live blogging planned. The post provides a general overview of the Court's activity for March 31.

The Supreme Court rejected a Colorado law banning "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ+ minors, a practice where therapists attempt to change a young person's gender identity or sexual orientation. The ruling has implications for more than 20 other states with similar restrictions on the books.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear a landmark birthright citizenship case, this article explores how immigration policies historically shaped the personal family histories of the justices themselves. The piece underscores how citizenship law has determined who can be an American across generations.

The Supreme Court considered a death penalty case involving allegations of racial bias in jury selection by an infamous Mississippi prosecutor. The case revisits longstanding concerns about discriminatory use of peremptory strikes in capital cases.

The Supreme Court ruled against a state ban on "conversion therapy" for LGBTQ+ minors, a major decision that casts doubt on similar prohibitions in roughly 30 states. The ruling is described as the latest in a series of decisions rolling back protections for LGBTQ+ people.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a birthright citizenship case that could determine whether a baby born in Florida to a "dreamer" parent retains U.S. citizenship. The case poses fundamental questions about the 14th Amendment and whether children born on U.S. soil to noncitizens are guaranteed citizenship.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the case of a Louisiana man sentenced to life imprisonment as well as the appeal of "Tiger King" Joseph Maldonado-Passage. The Court also agreed to take up a procedural question from a pregnancy discrimination case about whether a defendant can raise an affirmative defense.

SCOTUSblog previews the upcoming oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case, by posing 20 sets of questions the solicitor general is likely to face from the justices. The case challenges President Trump's executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

This article is part of a recurring series examining influential Supreme Court dissents. It focuses on a dissent that questioned the constitutionality of certain administrative jury trials, discussed in the context of the George Jarkesy case involving SEC enforcement proceedings.

SCOTUSblog released an animated explainer video about the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, as part of a series covering the most important cases of the 2025-26 term. The video breaks down the legal questions surrounding the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee for people born on U.S. soil.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup for March 30 highlights the release of a new animated explainer video on a major case of the term and recaps the day's Supreme Court activity. The roundup covers key developments including cert denials and upcoming oral arguments.

The Atlantic examines how the Supreme Court is revisiting the question of birthright citizenship, noting that fringe elements of American society have long refused to accept that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship for those born in the United States. The article provides historical context for the legal challenge now before the Court.

President Trump's executive order to limit birthright citizenship has reached the Supreme Court and is dividing conservative legal scholars. Before the order, there was broad consensus that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship for babies born in the United States, but the case has reopened that debate among originalist thinkers.

The Supreme Court declined to review the murder-for-hire conviction of Joseph Maldonado-Passage, known as the "Tiger King" from a popular 2020 Netflix documentary. His conviction and sentence will stand after the Court refused to take up the case.

SCOTUSblog announced it will live-blog the Supreme Court's potential release of opinions in argued cases on Tuesday, March 31. No specific cases were identified in the announcement.

This article explores the historical context of birthright citizenship through mid-20th century American legal and cultural figures, ahead of the Supreme Court's upcoming consideration of Trump v. Barbara. It connects past attitudes toward citizenship and American identity to the current legal battle over birthright citizenship.

The Supreme Court announced that cases involving Temporary Protected Status will be argued on April 29, the final day of the April argument session and the last scheduled argument day of the term. The specific TPS cases were not named in the summary but relate to the court's immigration docket.

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Pitchford v. Cain, involving a Mississippi death-row inmate who claims racial discrimination tainted the jury selection at his trial. The case raises issues under the landmark Batson v. Kentucky precedent prohibiting race-based peremptory strikes.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 1 in a major birthright citizenship case, one of the highest-profile disputes of the 2025-26 term. The article previews the key legal arguments on both sides regarding the scope of the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee, in Trump v. Barbara.

SCOTUSblog's daily digest for Friday, March 27 included a survey request for legal professionals and a roundup of the day's Supreme Court news. No specific case developments were highlighted in the description.

The Supreme Court ruled against extending a defendant's federal supervised release term while the defendant was a fugitive. The decision clarifies that the period during which a defendant absconds does not toll or extend the supervised release term under federal law.

An opinion piece discusses a historical instance in which the Supreme Court allowed a president to redefine the scope of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause. The article draws parallels to current executive efforts to limit birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Flower Foods, Inc. v. Brock, debating whether "last-mile" delivery drivers fall under the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. The justices considered how broadly to interpret the exemption, which could shield gig and delivery workers from mandatory arbitration.

SCOTUSblog's Relist Watch column examines cert petitions the Supreme Court has relisted for upcoming conference consideration. The relisted cases involve issues including Brady violations, child abduction under the Hague Convention, qualified immunity, and government confessions of error.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected a billion-dollar-plus copyright infringement judgment against Cox Communications, the internet service provider sued by Sony Music Entertainment and other music companies. The decision reflects the Court's skepticism, evident at oral argument, toward holding ISPs liable for massive damages based on their subscribers' copyright violations.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup for March 26 provides a summary of the day's Supreme Court news, including opinions issued, oral arguments heard, and other notable developments from the current term. The column offers a lighthearted overview alongside substantive Court updates.

SCOTUSblog critiques attorney Pete Patterson's legal arguments about birthright citizenship, arguing that his latest post repeats and compounds errors from his original analysis of the key legal issues. The piece addresses the ongoing constitutional debate over the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next week in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, which involves a technical question about whether federal courts have jurisdiction to confirm arbitration awards. The case addresses the scope of federal court authority in enforcing arbitration outcomes.

During oral argument in Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, the justices appeared broadly skeptical of a lower court's strict rule governing what happens when a debtor in bankruptcy omits information. The bench seemed to view the absolute standard as overly harsh and questioned its legal basis.

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Abouammo v. United States on whether federal prosecutors can try a defendant in a location beyond where the offense was actually committed, based on the crime's "contemplated effects." The case raises important questions about the constitutional limits of criminal venue.

Erwin Chemerinsky's recurring column examines the Supreme Court's role in shaping voting identification law and what its decisions mean for voters, lawyers, and lower courts. The piece is part of a broader analysis of how the Court's rulings impact people's everyday lives.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup notes that the Supreme Court is expected to have a busy day on March 25, likely beginning with opinion announcements. The post previews the Court's scheduled activities for the day.

Some states are already preparing for the possibility that the Supreme Court will bar the counting of mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, as the Court's conservative justices appear skeptical of such laws. A decision could come as late as June and could significantly affect upcoming midterm elections.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of internet provider Cox Communications in a copyright dispute brought by major music labels including Sony Music Entertainment. The labels had sued Cox for failing to terminate the accounts of subscribers flagged for distributing pirated copyrighted music.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that internet service providers like Cox Communications are not liable for their users' music piracy. The ruling likely means Cox will not have to pay a large judgment sought by dozens of music companies including Sony.

The Washington Post examines why a relatively low-profile Wisconsin Supreme Court election carries significant political implications. The piece explores how the race fits into broader contests over judicial power and influence at the state level.

Legal scholars debate whether the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause was intended to codify English common-law principles of subjectship. The author argues against Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar's position, contending that the amendment does not automatically grant citizenship to children born to temporary visitors in the United States.

The Supreme Court appeared likely during oral arguments to side with the Trump administration's policy of systematically turning back asylum seekers before they reach the U.S.-Mexico border. The case concerns the government's authority to deny asylum seekers access to the border and the legal rights of those individuals.

A recurring SCOTUSblog series examines the legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and his lasting influence on the Supreme Court. The piece explores how Scalia's contributions to legal interpretation, particularly originalism and textualism, have shaped—and sometimes complicated—modern judicial reasoning.

The Supreme Court announced it will hear arguments in late April on the Trump administration's effort to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrian and Haitian nationals. The explainer discusses the legal framework of TPS and what is at stake in the upcoming case.

SCOTUSblog's daily recap notes that on March 24, 2009, Citizens United v. FEC was first argued before the Supreme Court, a landmark case on political spending. The post reflects on the case's significance and the court's eventual sweeping ruling after reargument months later.

The Supreme Court appeared receptive during oral arguments to the Trump administration's request to reinstate a policy of turning back asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. The policy, originally rescinded in 2021, is sought by the Justice Department as a flexible tool for border control.

The Supreme Court issued orders reversing a federal appeals court ruling on qualified immunity, granting a Vermont police officer immunity from a misconduct claim. The Court also denied review of a death-row inmate's case seeking DNA testing and turned away a First Amendment challenge brought by a citizen journalist.

An analysis piece discusses the constitutional text of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and its implications for birthright citizenship. The article examines how the Supreme Court might approach the issue by focusing on textual interpretation while avoiding questions about parents' immigration status.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a challenge to a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted if received within days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by that date. Based on the justices' questioning, the Court appeared likely to strike down the law, which could have broad implications for mail-in voting nationwide.

SCOTUSblog announced that the Supreme Court may release opinions in one or more argued cases on Wednesday, March 25. The blog will provide live coverage of any decisions handed down that day.

This installment of the recurring "Nuts and Bolts" series by Stephen Wermiel explores the inner mechanics of Supreme Court decision-making. The piece focuses on how experienced Court watchers analyze the bottom-line outcomes and reasoning in the Court's opinions.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup previews the March argument session, highlighting the upcoming oral argument on birthright citizenship scheduled for April 1. The post also promotes a joint event between SCOTUSblog and Briefly on March 26.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of death-row inmate Rodney Reed, who has spent over a decade seeking DNA testing that he argues could prove his innocence. Reed's case had drawn widespread public attention and advocacy from various public figures.

In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that a Vermont police officer is entitled to qualified immunity and cannot be sued for allegedly using excessive force against a protester during a 2015 sit-in at the state capitol. The decision reversed a lower court ruling that had allowed the misconduct claim to proceed.

The Supreme Court signaled it is likely to strike down a Mississippi law allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots received up to five days after polls close. Republican groups challenged the law, and the case could have significant implications for mail-in voting rules ahead of upcoming midterm elections.

The Supreme Court is considering a case brought by the Republican National Committee that could invalidate mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. Critics warn that such a ruling could disenfranchise thousands of voters, with a disproportionate impact on Democratic voters who rely more heavily on mail-in voting. The case has significant implications for voting access in upcoming midterm elections.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a Mississippi street preacher who sued to block future enforcement of a public demonstration ordinance he had previously been convicted of violating. The decision allows his free speech challenge to move forward in lower courts.

SCOTUSblog announced it will live blog the oral argument on April 1 in Trump v. Barbara, which concerns the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. The case is one of the most closely watched of the current term.

The Supreme Court will consider Flower Foods v. Brock, which asks whether "last-mile" delivery drivers fall within the exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act. The case adds to a growing line of disputes over who qualifies for arbitration exemptions under the FAA.

SCOTUSblog posted a brief notice that the Supreme Court may announce opinions on Friday, March 20, with a live blog starting at 9:30 a.m. EDT. No specific cases were identified in the notice.

The Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit by Gabriel Olivier, a street preacher who was arrested for violating a Brandon, Mississippi ordinance restricting demonstrations outside an amphitheater. The ruling lets his legal challenge to the ordinance proceed.

The Supreme Court sided with an antiabortion activist in a free speech case, ruling that he can challenge a law that blocked protests outside a designated area. The decision reinforces First Amendment protections for public demonstrations.

Legal scholars Akhil and Vikram Amar argue that the text, history, and structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 undermine President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. The article analyzes constitutional and statutory foundations to explain why the executive order is legally unsound.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, a case about bankruptcy procedure. The case concerns the legal standards for excusing a debtor's failure to properly disclose certain information during bankruptcy proceedings.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case challenging the government's policy of turning back asylum seekers before they reach the U.S.-Mexico border. The case involves the rights of asylum seekers and government border enforcement practices.

SCOTUSblog's Relist Watch column reviews cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for an upcoming conference, covering topics including uninjured class members, hindsight harmlessness analysis, presidential cronies, and mistaken use of deadly force. The column examines 261 petitions and applications under consideration by the justices.

SCOTUSblog's daily digest notes that Chief Justice Earl Warren was born on March 19, 1891, and highlights his decade-long service as governor of California before joining the Supreme Court. The post is a brief historical note with no substantive case discussion.

This article explores whether the Supreme Court holds a strong "unitary" judicial power analogous to the "unitary executive" theory under Article II. It examines the intersection of Supreme Court authority and criminal law, questioning the scope and concentration of the Court's judicial power.

The Supreme Court issued a decision on asylum that has added significant workload to the already overburdened Department of Justice. The article analyzes how the ruling affects immigration enforcement and asylum processing, highlighting emerging legal questions about new policy and enforcement practices.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a case that could have major implications for the 2026 elections and beyond. The case is part of the Court's March argument session and involves election-related legal questions with potentially far-reaching consequences.

This daily roundup covers miscellaneous Supreme Court news, including a suggestion by the chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts to alter the White House's architectural style to resemble the Supreme Court Building. The piece compiles various lighter and procedural items related to the Court for the day.

SCOTUSblog published an installment of its recurring series comparing supreme courts around the world, this time focusing on the Supreme Court of Canada. The piece interviews experts on how the Canadian high court operates and how it compares to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Adam Feldman's Empirical SCOTUS series examines data on which advocates appear most frequently on Supreme Court briefs. The analysis looks at patterns in briefing to shed light on the justices' decision-making processes.

Following the Supreme Court's recent ruling on President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, SCOTUSblog analyzes the unresolved legal questions that remain. The decision addressed the 1977 law's grant of presidential power to regulate commerce during foreign-created national emergencies, but several issues about its scope and application are still open.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup for March 17, 2026, marks St. Patrick's Day by highlighting Supreme Court justices of Irish descent. The post serves as a brief daily digest of court-related news and trivia.

Chief Justice John Roberts publicly stated that personal attacks on judges are 'dangerous' and must stop, marking his first public remarks since President Trump harshly criticized the justices who ruled against his tariff policies. Roberts's comments signal concern about threats to judicial independence and the rule of law.

The Supreme Court announced it will hear oral arguments on whether the Trump administration can terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for several thousand Syrian nationals and approximately 350,000 Haitian nationals. This case is part of the administration's broader mass deportation efforts and could have significant implications for protected status programs.

A group of Haitian nationals filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to leave intact a federal judge's ruling in Washington, D.C., that allows them to remain in the United States under Temporary Protected Status. They are opposing the Trump administration's request to strip their protected status as part of its immigration enforcement agenda.

Constitutional law scholars Akhil and Vikram Amar published a response to Pete Patterson regarding the issue of birthright citizenship, as part of their recurring "Brothers in Law" series. The piece examines constitutional text and Supreme Court precedent on the question of who is entitled to citizenship at birth under the 14th Amendment.

SCOTUSblog published a tribute to legendary Supreme Court reporter Lyle Denniston on his 95th birthday. Denniston, who served as SCOTUSblog's primary reporter from 2004 to 2016, began his journalism career in 1948 and is renowned for his decades of coverage of the Court.

SCOTUSblog's daily recap noted the sixth anniversary of the Supreme Court postponing its March argument session due to the COVID-19 pandemic, while also discussing current tensions between the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve. The piece draws parallels between past and present disruptions to the Court's operations and broader governmental conflicts.

The Supreme Court deferred an immediate decision on the Trump administration's bid to end Temporary Protected Status for migrants from Haiti and Syria, opting instead to schedule oral arguments on the matter. The case is central to the president's mass deportation efforts and could affect hundreds of thousands of migrants currently living in the United States.

The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the Trump administration can end Temporary Protected Status for Syrian and Haitian nationals, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for other legal challenges to the government's efforts to terminate TPS for hundreds of thousands of migrants. The case represents a major test of executive authority over immigration protections.

SCOTUSblog announced that on Friday, March 20, the Supreme Court may release opinions in one or more argued cases from the current term. The blog plans to provide live coverage as any decisions are handed down.

This analytical piece examines whether legislative history still has a role in judicial interpretation, particularly in the context of the Supreme Court's approach to administrative law and agency power. It is part of a recurring series on major questions in administrative law.

This opinion piece questions whether Justice Alito is prematurely addressing voting rights issues in his Supreme Court opinions. The article is part of a recurring series analyzing the effects of the Court's rulings and procedures on law and other institutions.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup for March 13 notes the historical anniversary of President Chester A. Arthur's nomination of Justice Samuel Blatchford to the Supreme Court on this date in 1882. Blatchford, described as a precocious talent, attended what is now Columbia University.

The article critiques the originalist arguments being made in Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court. It suggests that while many parties claim to use originalism as their interpretive method, the Trump administration's arguments fall short of sound originalist analysis regarding the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.

SCOTUSblog interviews Jerry Goldman, the founder of the Oyez Project, as part of a new series on people who have shaped public understanding of the Supreme Court. The conversation covers Goldman's pioneering work in making Supreme Court oral arguments and information accessible to the public online.

The article examines the historical and contemporary phenomenon of presidents publicly attacking the Supreme Court, focusing on President Trump's recent criticisms following a ruling against his administration. It places Trump's remarks in the broader context of past presidential conflicts with the Court.

This daily Supreme Court recap notes the historical event on March 12, 1804, when the House of Representatives voted to impeach Justice Samuel Chase for alleged abuses of power, including refusing to dismiss biased jurors. The piece serves as a brief historical snapshot tied to the current Court's calendar.

Supreme Court justices have clashed publicly over the Court's handling of cases on the emergency or "shadow" docket. The dispute highlights ongoing tensions among the justices about the propriety and frequency of emergency rulings without full briefing and argument.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to stay a federal judge's ruling that blocked the government from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian nationals. The administration is seeking emergency relief to allow it to revoke the protected status while litigation continues.

A SCOTUSblog analysis argues that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause does not simply adopt English common-law principles of subjectship. The piece engages with the legal debate surrounding President Trump's executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants.

SCOTUSblog published an explainer on how the First Amendment applies to students at public universities. The article surveys the legal landscape around campus free speech, a topic that has gained renewed attention due to protests related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at various universities.

In a column by Erwin Chemerinsky, the piece examines how the Supreme Court has historically weakened separation-of-powers principles during wartime. The analysis considers the broader implications of the Court's decisions for civil liberties and executive power when the nation is engaged in armed conflict.

The daily SCOTUStoday roundup for March 11 covers a range of Supreme Court-related news, including a report on lawsuits over AI bots allegedly practicing law without a license. The digest compiles the day's notable stories related to the Court and the legal profession.

The New York Times reports that the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to end Temporary Protected Status deportation protections for Haitian immigrants. The administration has also sought to terminate similar protections for other immigrant groups, including Syrians.

The article discusses the Supreme Court's oral argument in United States v. Hemani, a case related to gun control and the Second Amendment. It is part of a recurring series analyzing Second Amendment constitutional litigation and examines the legal questions at stake in the case.

SCOTUSblog announced the addition of two new podcasts, Amarica's Constitution and Divided Argument, to its podcast lineup alongside Advisory Opinions. The new podcast partners will maintain editorial independence while being featured on the SCOTUSblog platform.

Legal scholars Akhil and Vikram Amar analyze the legal takeaways from the Supreme Court's handling of birthright citizenship cases. The article examines how the Court's rulings compare to the text of the Constitution itself, as part of a recurring constitutional analysis series.

The SCOTUStoday daily roundup announces the addition of new podcasts to SCOTUSblog's lineup and highlights a joint episode featuring hosts from multiple Supreme Court–focused podcasts. The episode covers a range of current Supreme Court developments.

Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh publicly debated how the Supreme Court should handle emergency requests, particularly those related to Trump administration cases. The rare joint appearance revealed sharp disagreements over the Court's use of its emergency or "shadow" docket.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the Supreme Court's handling of emergency rulings during a public forum alongside Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The two justices offered contrasting perspectives on President Trump's wins before the high court through emergency proceedings.

The Supreme Court added one new case to its docket involving a technical dispute over the interaction between two federal environmental laws. The court did not take action on several pending Second Amendment challenges, leaving those cases unresolved for now.

In the ongoing birthright citizenship litigation, the Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to reinterpret a longstanding constitutional concept in a novel way as part of President Trump's immigration agenda. The article analyzes the government's legal arguments about the scope of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

This article examines a historic Supreme Court dissent related to the Olympics and intellectual property or trademark rights, arguing that the Olympic brand should be more publicly accessible. The piece is part of a recurring series on influential Supreme Court dissents that have shaped American law and culture.

A daily Supreme Court news roundup highlights a new NBC News poll showing that only 22% of registered U.S. voters have significant confidence in the Supreme Court. The low confidence numbers reflect ongoing public skepticism about the institution.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving a dispute between environmentalists in Guam and the Trump administration over the Air Force's disposal of hazardous munitions on a beach. The case centers on the interaction between federal environmental laws governing the cleanup of military waste.

The article examines the debate over birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, focusing on how the exceptions to the clause "subject to the jurisdiction" shape the interpretation of who qualifies for citizenship at birth. It analyzes the constitutional text and its historical context in the ongoing legal and political battles over birthright citizenship.

Legal scholar Stephanie Barclay argues that critics of the Supreme Court's emergency or "shadow" docket have the analysis backwards. The piece defends the Court's use of emergency orders, suggesting the practice serves important constitutional and practical functions rather than undermining judicial norms.

The article revisits the still-unsolved leak of the Supreme Court's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, prompted by renewed attention to court security after Justice Clarence Thomas shifted a conference appearance to virtual due to security concerns. It discusses the ongoing mystery and implications for the Court's internal operations.

This daily Supreme Court roundup notes the historical anniversary of the Court's 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that an enslaved man who had lived in free territory was not a citizen and could not sue in federal court. The post provides a brief recap of Court-related news for March 6.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hunter v. United States, which concerns what exceptions should apply when federal criminal defendants waive their right to appeal as part of plea agreements. Based on the argument, the justices appeared inclined to recognize certain exceptions to these appellate waivers.

A group of Syrian nationals asked the Supreme Court to preserve a federal judge's ruling that allows them to remain in the United States. The case involves immigration protections and the government's ability to remove the individuals.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, debating whether federal law preempts state negligent hiring claims against freight brokers. The case could determine whether brokers can be held liable under state law when accidents occur involving carriers they hired.

The Supreme Court ruled in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation that New Jersey Transit can be sued in courts outside New Jersey. The decision allows two men seriously injured by NJ Transit buses in New York and Pennsylvania to pursue their claims in those states.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup covers several developments, including the Trump administration's timeline for resolving tariff refund disputes and other ongoing Supreme Court activity. The summary touches on multiple cases and procedural updates from the Court's Wednesday session.

The Supreme Court issued orders this week that liberal justices criticized as an expansion of the emergency docket, this time to curb state court actions. The article describes an increasingly assertive Court willing to intervene in state court proceedings through its shadow docket.

The Supreme Court released opinions in two cases on Wednesday, March 4: Urias-Orellana v. Bondi and Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. SCOTUSblog provided live coverage as the decisions were handed down.

Legal scholars Akhil and Vikram Amar analyze amicus briefs filed in a birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court, evaluating whether the briefs' originalist arguments hold up under scrutiny. The piece is part of their recurring "Brothers in Law" series comparing the Court's reasoning with constitutional text.

Adam Feldman's "Empirical SCOTUS" series examines the phenomenon of attorney switches at the Supreme Court, analyzing data from oral arguments and opinions to shed light on how changes in legal representation may affect case outcomes. The piece uses empirical data to explore patterns in Supreme Court advocacy.

SCOTUSblog's daily briefing previewed the Supreme Court's fourth opinion day in less than two weeks, with live blogging coverage beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST on Wednesday, March 4. The post set the stage for the day's expected opinion releases.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the federal government in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, an immigration case. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion holding that federal courts of appeals must follow certain procedural requirements when reviewing immigration decisions.

SCOTUSblog's Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for its upcoming conference. The column notes the Court is continuing to consider various petitions that have been held over for further discussion.

SCOTUSblog launched a new recurring series comparing supreme courts around the world, starting with the UK Supreme Court. The article interviews experts on how the UK's highest court compares to the U.S. Supreme Court in structure and function.

In a column on criminal justice and civil rights, the author discusses how the Supreme Court recently issued summary reversals that send a troubling message to lower courts. The piece examines the implications of these decisions for how lower courts should handle similar cases going forward.

SCOTUSblog's daily newsletter rounds up the latest Supreme Court news and legal headlines for March 3. The newsletter references recent notable legal news items and Court developments.

The Supreme Court granted a request from California parents to reinstate a federal district court ruling that blocks California schools from hiding students' transgender status from their parents. The decision sides with parents and religious educators who challenged state policies on transgender student notifications.

The Supreme Court granted Republicans' emergency request to pause a lower court order requiring New York to redraw its congressional map ahead of the 2026 elections. The ruling allows New York to proceed with its existing congressional districts despite concerns that the map illegally diluted minority voters' power.

The Supreme Court sided with Christian teachers and parents who challenged California policies they say require schools to conceal students' transgender status from their parents. The ruling blocks the state's trans student notification policies from being enforced.

In an emergency ruling, the Supreme Court preserved the congressional district of a Republican congresswoman in New York, despite a lower court finding that it illegally diluted minority voting power. The decision is a significant win for Republicans heading into the 2026 election cycle.

The Supreme Court sided with Christian parents challenging a California law that prohibits school policies requiring employees to report students' sexual orientation and gender identity to parents. The ruling reinstates a lower court order blocking the state's transgender student notification restrictions.

The Supreme Court blocked the redrawing of a Republican-held congressional district in New York that a state trial court had ordered redrawn to include more Black and Latino voters. The decision preserves the current district lines for upcoming elections.

The Supreme Court declined to hear several cases on Monday, including one about filing fees for indigent prisoners and another about felons' gun possession rights. The court's three Democratic-appointed justices dissented from the denial of the prisoner filing-fee case.

This article discusses the legal and historical concept of foundlings (babies of unknown parentage) in the context of the birthright citizenship cases before the Supreme Court. It comments on four amicus briefs that complement the arguments in the litigation challenging executive action on birthright citizenship.

The Supreme Court appeared skeptical during oral arguments of a federal law that prohibits drug users from possessing firearms. The case involves a Texas man indicted under the statute, and a majority of justices questioned whether the law is constitutionally permissible under the Second Amendment.

SCOTUSblog hosted a live blog covering Monday's oral argument in United States v. Hemani, which concerns whether a federal statute prohibiting gun possession by users of illegal drugs is constitutional. The live blog provided real-time updates as the justices questioned the attorneys.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Hunter v. United States on Tuesday, March 3, addressing how broadly a federal defendant's waiver of the right to appeal should be interpreted. The case examines the scope of appeal waivers that defendants agree to as part of plea deals.

This daily summary from SCOTUSblog highlights the day's key Supreme Court activity, centered on the oral argument in United States v. Hemani about the federal ban on gun possession by drug users. It also points readers to an animated explainer and a live blog covering the argument.

The Supreme Court appeared skeptical of a federal law banning drug users from owning firearms, with a majority of justices voicing concerns that the law is overbroad. Justices questioned whether the statute improperly lumps occasional drug users with addicts who pose genuine public safety threats.

The article discusses how the Supreme Court's consideration of the federal gun law used to convict Hunter Biden could affect his efforts to regain his law license. Biden says he is closely watching the Hemani case, which tests the constitutionality of the statute that prohibits drug users from possessing firearms.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether a federal law barring marijuana users from possessing guns violates the Second Amendment. The central legal question is whether the restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required by the Court's recent precedents.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a major ruling under the Voting Rights Act that could significantly reshape congressional district maps across the country. The timing of the decision is critical, as it could impact redistricting efforts ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. The article examines how different outcomes and timing scenarios could affect the political landscape.

SCOTUSblog announced it will live-blog the potential release of opinions in argued cases on Wednesday, March 4. The court may hand down decisions in one or more cases from the current term.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II on March 4, addressing whether a federal law originally designed to address state trucking regulations preempts state-law claims holding freight brokers liable for negligent hiring. The case concerns the scope of federal preemption in the trucking industry.

During oral arguments in Pung v. Isabella County, the justices appeared skeptical of a constitutional challenge to foreclosure sales. While the justices seemed confident they should hear the case, they expressed doubts about the merits of the challenge to the constitutionality of the foreclosure process at issue.

A SCOTUSblog analysis examines the Supreme Court's recent decision striking down the president's tariffs and the role the major questions doctrine played in the ruling. The article argues that the debate over the major questions doctrine in the tariffs case is just the beginning of broader legal battles over executive power and regulatory authority.

SCOTUSblog released an animated explainer video about United States v. Hemani, one of the important upcoming cases of the 2025-26 term. The video is the first in a planned series done in partnership with Briefly to make key Supreme Court cases more accessible to the public.

The daily SCOTUSblog roundup for February 27 highlights the launch of a new animated video series covering important cases of the current Supreme Court term, beginning with a case explainer. The post provides a summary of the day's Supreme Court news and developments.

Justice Clarence Thomas lamented growing incivility and security threats facing members of the judiciary after an in-person speaking engagement was canceled due to security concerns. He instead participated remotely in a closed-door session of a legal conference, underscoring the heightened threats facing jurists in recent years.

The Supreme Court ruled in GEO Group v. Menocal that a private contractor for ICE cannot pursue an immediate appeal from a district court judgment. The decision limits the ability of government contractors to use interlocutory appeals in such cases.

SCOTUSblog's Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that have been relisted for an upcoming Supreme Court conference, focusing on cases involving beach blasts and unusually dangerous weapons. The column tracks petitions the justices are giving additional consideration before deciding whether to grant review.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to stay a federal judge's ruling that blocked the termination of Temporary Protected Status for Syrian nationals. The administration seeks to end the program as part of broader immigration enforcement efforts.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Hemani, a case examining whether and when drug users may be prohibited from possessing firearms. This is the second gun-rights case of the 2025-26 term, following an earlier case involving Hawaii gun regulations.

The Supreme Court ruled that trial courts may order criminal defendants not to discuss their ongoing testimony with their lawyers during overnight recesses. The decision addresses the balance between a defendant's right to counsel and the integrity of trial testimony.

An opinion column by Edward B. Foley explores how the Supreme Court can protect electoral integrity, as part of a recurring series on election law and democracy. The piece discusses the Court's confrontation with election-related cases and its role in safeguarding democratic processes.

SCOTUSblog's daily roundup for February 26 highlights a new poll showing 57% of Americans approve of a recent tariffs ruling by the Supreme Court. The post also includes a morning reads section with additional coverage of Court-related news.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to end Temporary Protected Status for Syrian migrants, part of the president's broader mass deportation efforts. The request seeks to overturn a lower court ruling that blocked the termination of the program.

Justice Gorsuch issued a warning in a tariffs case about the dangers of granting new powers to the president, noting that such powers are easy to grant but nearly impossible to reclaim. The commentary highlights concerns about the expansion of executive authority through trade policy.

The Supreme Court decided Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist, sending litigation over tainted baby food back to state court. The ruling addresses what happens when a federal district court incorrectly rules on its own jurisdiction in a case that was removed from state court.

The Supreme Court heard arguments but revealed little about whether the 30-day deadline for removing cases from state to federal court can be excused. The case addresses an important procedural question about the flexibility of removal deadlines under federal law.

The Supreme Court released opinions in two cases on February 25: Villarreal v. Texas and The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal. SCOTUSblog provided live coverage as the decisions were handed down.

An opinion piece analyzes Chief Justice John Roberts's opinion in a tariff case, arguing that a notable paragraph signals his growing frustration with the Trump administration. The article interprets Roberts's language as a deliberate rebuke of executive overreach.

Readers respond to the Supreme Court's ruling rejecting certain tariffs imposed by the executive branch. The letters discuss the implications of the decision for presidential trade authority and the separation of powers.