Is Ketanji Brown Jackson the great dissenter of the Roberts court?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined hosts Sarah Isgur and David French for a wide-ranging interview on the latest episode of “Advisory Opinions,” The Dispatch’s legal podcast. Recorded in the Lawyer’s Room at the Supreme Court, the roughly 45-minute interview touched on the history of originalism, the increasing contention around the emergency docket, and how “the judiciary is by design a passive branch.”

Barrett, drawing from her new book Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, spoke on her commitment to originalism with Isgur and French – notably, she characterized it not as a “tool of judicial restraint” but as a framework that requires analyzing both text and context. Specifically, Barrett referenced a hypothetical about “green vehicles” from her book, where a sign allowing “green cars” refers not to the color but emissions of the vehicle, to illustrate the point that language is inherently contextual. Throughout the conversation, Barrett also answered questions on some practical aspects of the court, like how exactly to pronounce “certiorari” (you’ll have to listen to the interview to find out) and what not to do as an advocate before the justices at oral argument (spoiler: it’s straying from the briefs). Barrett also reflected on her role as the second-least-senior justice, called clerking “a little bit like parenting,” and discussed how Justice Antonin Scalia influenced her own interactions with clerks.

You can listen to the full podcast here.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to fire, at least for now, a Democratic appointee to the Federal Trade Commission. A federal district judge in Washington, D.C., had ordered Trump to reinstate Rebecca Slaughter, who was originally nominated in 2018 by Trump to serve a seven-year term and then nominated to serve a second term by then-President Joe Biden. But Roberts granted the government’s request for an administrative stay – a temporary pause to give the justices time to consider the Trump administration’s plea to block the order by U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan while litigation continues in the lower courts.

Updated on Sept. 9 at 6:11 p.m.

For the third time since February, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the battle over its efforts to freeze billions of dollars in foreign-aid funding. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to pause what he described as “an unlawful injunction” entered by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that “precipitates an unnecessary emergency and needless interbranch conflict.”

The dispute dates back to the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term, when he signed an executive order that directed federal agencies to put commitments and disbursements of foreign-aid funds on hold so that the government could carry out a broad review of the programs to ensure that they were consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives. Consistent with that order, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a memorandum freezing foreign-aid funds through the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Since taking office in January, one of President Donald Trump’s priorities has been restructuring the federal workforce, including by significantly reducing the number of federal employees. In three separate challenges to the Trump administration’s reductions in force, the Supreme Court – on its emergency docket – has blocked rulings by federal judges that required the government to reinstate removed employees or barred it from carrying out firings.

After the Supreme Court issued its rulings, the three cases returned to the lower courts, where litigation continues. In at least two of the cases, although the proceedings were still in a preliminary stage, the government carried out its reductions in force after the Supreme Court’s orders.

A group of small businesses challenging the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump in a series of executive orders urged the Supreme Court to provide a definitive ruling on the legality of those tariffs. In a five-page brief filed on Friday afternoon, the challengers encouraged the justices to act quickly, telling them that the tariffs are “inflicting profound harms on” their companies, which are “suffering severe economic hardships as a result of the price increases and supply chain interruptions caused by the tariffs.” “[T]hese impacts,” the challengers stressed, “are ‘not survivable.’”