Skip to content
EMERGENCY DOCKET

Group challenges ruling that potentially weakens the Voting Rights Act

By Amy Howe on July 15 at 5:50 pm

On Tuesday, a group of plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to stay a lower court ruling prohibiting private plaintiffs from challenging discrimination under a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. According to the plaintiffs, the lower court’s decision means that voters in that circuit “have fewer enforceable rights and protections against racial discrimination in voting than citizens elsewhere in the nation.”

Supremecourt-9-scaled

(Katie Barlow)

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Supreme Court clears the way for Trump administration to massively reduce the size of the Department of Education

By Amy Howe on July 14 at 4:26 pm

On Monday, the Supreme Court paused an order by a district court requiring the Department of Education to reinstate nearly 1,400 employees fired by the Trump administration as part of its effort to dismantle the DOE. In a dissent joined by her two fellow Democratic appointees, Justice Sonia Sotomayor contended that the court’s decision would “unleash untold harm.”

COURTLY OBSERVATIONS

Judicial Deference?

By Erwin Chemerinsky on July 15 at 11:41 am

A central question in constitutional law is when courts should defer to the political branches of government and when courts should overrule them. Liberals and conservative justices both sometimes want to defer and sometimes not. What accounts for the difference isn’t about methods of constitutional interpretation or judicial philosophy. In so many cases, especially controversial ones, it is instead about the ideology and values of the justices. It always has been and always will be, and we shouldn’t pretend it is anything else.

SCOTUS FOCUS

The Ten Commandments return to classrooms: What will the Supreme Court do?

By Kelsey Dallas on July 15 at 9:25 am

Texas, following Louisiana and Arkansas, recently passed a law requiring that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public school classrooms. Although the court effectively declared such laws unconstitutional decades ago, the legal rationale for this decision has been undermined in recent years – making it an open question whether the Supreme Court will allow such laws to stand.

Newsletter Sign Up

Receive email updates, legal news, and original reporting from SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch.

More news

WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, July 15

By Zachary Shemtob on July 15, 2025

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Monday, July 14

By Zachary Shemtob on July 14, 2025

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read:

WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Friday, July 11

By Zachary Shemtob on July 11, 2025

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

CASES AND CONTROVERSIES

Whose irreparable harm?

By Carolyn Shapiro on July 10, 2025

Cases and Controversies is a recurring series by Carolyn Shapiro, primarily focusing on the effects of the Supreme Court’s rulings, opinions, and procedures on the law, on other institutions, and on our constitutional democracy more generally.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court announced that federal courts do not have the authority, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, to issue injunctions that prevent defendants from engaging in actions related to non-parties, even if those actions are illegal or unconstitutional. As others have pointed out, the practical consequences of the holding are unclear. The court described several mechanisms that might lead to comparably broad injunctive relief, including class actions, cases seeking to “set aside agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act, and court orders that provide relief to third parties as an incidental but necessary part of providing “complete relief” to the plaintiffs. So litigation will continue along these fronts, including in the birthright citizenship cases themselves. (The lower courts all found that the executive order purporting to narrow birthright citizenship was likely unconstitutional, holdings that the Supreme Court did not address.)

Continue Reading
WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, July 10

By Zachary Shemtob on July 10, 2025

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read: