Showing 1–50 of 118 items published in March 2026, most recent first.
In our last column, we imagined grilling Solicitor General D. John Sauer in a moot court on birthright citizenship. Today, we reverse angles and imagine some of the hardest questions that tough-minded justices could ask the challengers’ lawyer, our friend and ACLU counsel Cecillia Wang, at Wednesday’s Supreme Court oral argument.
The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here. It was a relatively quiet week at the relist window – just one grant, one denial, one apparent hold, and one new relist.
Updated on March 31 at 3:08 p.m. The Supreme Court on Tuesday sent a challenge to Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” – treatment intended to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity – for young people back to the lower courts for them to apply a new standard.
Yesterday’s argument in Jules v Andre Balazs Properties showed a bench with some uncertainty about the jurisdiction of federal courts to enforce an arbitration award.
Good morning, and welcome to what’s expected to be the fourth opinion day of the month. We will be live blogging beginning at 9:30 a.m. EDT. Also, to those of you who are in the legal profession, could you please fill out this brief survey about your work?
We were live as the court released its opinion in Chiles v. Salazar. In an 8-1 ruling from Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court held that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, […]
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to weigh in on a procedural question arising from a pregnancy discrimination case – specifically, whether a defendant can raise an affirmative defense (that is, a legal excuse or justification) later in the proceedings when it did not raise that defense in the answer to the plaintiff’s complaint.
SCOTUSblog is excited to share the second in a series of animated videos, done in partnership with Briefly, on some of the most important upcoming cases of the 2025-26 term.
We’re excited to introduce the second in our series of animated videos, done in partnership with Briefly, on some of the term’s most important cases. This new video is an introduction to the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, which will be argued on Wednesday. Watch it here.
The Supreme Court on Friday morning announced that it will hear arguments on April 29 – the last day of the court’s April argument session, and the last day of regularly scheduled oral arguments – on the Trump administration’s efforts to end the Temporary Protected Status program for several thousand Syrians and roughly 350,000 Haitians currently living in the United States.
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in Pitchford v. Cain, the case of a Mississippi man who contends that he was sentenced to death in violation of the Constitution’s ban on racial discrimination in jury selection.
On April 1, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in one of the highest-profile cases of the 2025-26 term – and indeed, one of the biggest cases in several years. Trump v. Barbara is a challenge to President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
As you might have seen yesterday, we have a favor to ask those of you who are in the legal profession: Could you fill out this brief survey about your work? We’re looking to better understand segments of our audience and the tools they use.
After completing a term of imprisonment, federal criminal defendants often serve terms of supervised release that usually last between one to five years, depending on the offense for which they were convicted.
The president finds the long-settled meaning of the citizenship clause to be an intolerable obstacle to his agenda. The reason? Each year it would make U.S. citizens of tens of thousands of people who do not fit his racial and cultural ideal of what it means to be an “American.” So what does he do?
Yesterday brought the justices another of the term’s cases about the federal statute forcing the enforcement of arbitration agreements. The issue in this one – Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock – is the scope of an exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act for interstate transportation workers.
The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here. This week, the Supreme Court started thinning the relist herd.
Yesterday’s unanimous decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Entertainment surprised no one who observed the argument, which had suggested a bench deeply skeptical of a billion-plus dollar judgment imposed on Cox Communications, an internet service provider, based on the infringing activities of its subscribers.
Do you like piña coladas? What about getting caught in the rain? We here at SCOTUSblog liked discovering this week that Rupert Holmes, the man who wrote and recorded “Escape (The Pina Colada Song),” has written a play about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Next week’s argument in Jules v Andre Balazs Properties considers a technical question about the jurisdiction of federal courts to enforce an arbitration award.
Yesterday’s argument in Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction displayed a bench almost uniformly skeptical of a lower court’s absolute standard for responding to the failure of a debtor in bankruptcy to mention one of its assets to that court.
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Monday in Abouammo v. United States, in which it will consider whether federal prosecutors can try a defendant not only in the district where the offense actually occurred, but also in the district where the crime’s “contemplated effects” are felt.
It’s going to be another busy day at the Supreme Court, and it’s expected to start with opinion announcements.
We were live as the court released its opinions in Rico v. United States and Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to uphold the federal government’s policy of systematically turning back asylum seekers before they can reach the U.S. border with Mexico.
The Supreme Court announced last week that it will hear argument in late April on the Trump administration’s effort to remove protected immigration status from Syrian and Haitian nationals.
Citizens United v. FEC, a major case on political spending, was argued for the first time on this day in 2009. After reargument approximately six months later, the court in January 2010 struck down the challenged restrictions on spending by corporations and unions.
In a list of orders released on Monday morning, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling by a federal appeals court, holding that a Vermont police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a lawsuit brought by a nonviolent protester who was injured during a sit-in at the state’s capitol.
The Supreme Court on Monday appeared ready to overturn a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by, and then received within five business days of, Election Day.
Good morning, and welcome to the March argument session, which includes the argument on birthright citizenship on Wednesday, April 1. This Thursday, March 26, SCOTUSblog is teaming up with Briefly for a LinkedIn Live event about the birthright citizenship case.
A unanimous court on Friday sided with a Mississippi street preacher who sued to block future enforcement of a public demonstration ordinance that he was previously convicted of violating.
Flowers Foods v. Brock brings the justices another in a lengthening line of cases about the exemptions from the Federal Arbitration Act. The specific question is whether “last-mile” drivers – drivers who deliver from a regional warehouse to the store – are exempt from the arbitration requirements of that statute.
The court has indicated that it may announce opinions this morning at 10 a.m. EDT. Our opinion day live blog begins at 9:30. Join us!
We were live as the court released its opinion in Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi.
Next week’s argument in Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction involves a technical question about bankruptcy procedure – the standards for overlooking the failure of a debtor in bankruptcy to mention one of its assets to the court.