The Supreme Court on Friday sent a lawsuit seeking to hold oil and gas companies liable for damage to the Louisiana coast back to the federal courts. Several Louisiana parishes – the equivalent of counties in that state – had filed the lawsuit in state court, and in 2024 a federal appeals court in New Orleans rebuffed the companies’ latest effort to move the case to federal court. By a vote of 8-0 in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, with Justice Samuel Alito not participating because he owns stock in the parent company of one of the defendants in the case, the justices on Friday morning threw out the appeals court’s decision.

The federal law at the center of the case is known as the “federal officer removal statute.” It gives federal courts the power to hear state court cases filed against “any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office.”

Welcome to SCOTUSblog’s recurring series in which we interview experts on different supreme courts around the world and ask about how they compare to our own. Today we focus on the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, which has some absolutely fascinating differences with SCOTUS (in ways both very good and very bad – you can choose which is which). To help me unpack things, I spoke to Professor Diego Werneck Arguelhes.

Professor Arguelhes is Dean of the Law Faculty at the Insper Institute for Education and Research, in São Paulo, Brazil. He obtained his LL.B. and M.A. from the State University of Rio de Janeiro, and his LL.M. and J.S.D. from Yale Law School.

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog.

In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court held that Colorado’s law prohibiting licensed counselors from seeking to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors was subject to strict First Amendment scrutiny – a victory for opponents of the law. The statute, the court held, discriminated based on viewpoint by allowing the counselors to engage in therapies that affirmed specific sexual orientations and gender identities, but not speech that sought to change them.

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

Looking across the petitions currently tracked on SCOTUSblog’s designated petitions page, we can see some patterns about what types of cases the court may be interested in hearing in the 2026-27 term.

When the justices meet for their private conference on Friday, April 17, they will consider a petition for review filed by a Catholic preschool in Colorado, challenging its exclusion from that state’s universal preschool program. The preschool contends that the state is discriminating against it based on religion, because Colorado will not provide it with an exemption from rules that would require it to admit everyone – including LGBTQ children and children with LGBTQ parents.

In addition to the briefs filed by the preschool and the state in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, there are 21 “friend of the court,” or amicus, briefs supporting the preschool’s appeal, filed by groups ranging from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to a large coalition of states, led by West Virginia. But one amicus brief, in particular, stands out: a brief filed by the Trump administration, arguing that the decision by a federal appeals court in favor of Colorado was “seriously” wrong and that the Supreme Court should take up the case. Although the federal government frequently files “friend of the court” briefs in the Supreme Court, it has been – at least until recently – unusual for it to do so at its own initiative at this stage of the process. What might be going on here?