Analysis & Opinions

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.

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.