The most important cases of the next term

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

• Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship could have taken effect this weekend. Lower courts are continuing to block it (Devan Cole, CNN)
• Confidence in the Supreme Court is increasing, but so are concerns over its power (AP/NORC)
• Trump says Obama ‘owes me big’ for Supreme Court immunity ruling (Steven Nelson, The New York Post)
• Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge (Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee, The Hill)
• In Smithsonian Role, John Roberts Encounters History, Pandas and Trump (Abbie VanSickle, Robin Pogrebin, and Graham Bowley, The New York Times)

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

• US appeals court blocks Trump’s order curtailing birthright citizenship (Nate Raymond, Reuters)
• Why is the Supreme Court siding with Trump? Elena Kagan says the majority should explain. (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)
• Former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis asks Supreme Court to reverse same-sex marriage decision (Brooke Migdon, The Hill)
• Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: Meet The October Term 2025 SCOTUS Clerks (David Lat, Original Jurisdiction)
• A little snark, a little sarcasm: How dissenting opinions catch our attention (Joan Biskupic, CNN)

The Supreme Court on Thursday put on hold, at least for now, a ruling by a federal appeals court that could limit the power of the Voting Rights Act. In a brief unsigned order, the justices agreed to pause a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit holding that private plaintiffs cannot rely on federal civil rights laws to bring claims under Section 2 of the VRA, which bars racial discrimination in voting. The 8th Circuit’s decision will remain blocked to give the plaintiffs in the case – two Native American tribes and several individual voters – time to file a petition for review of that ruling.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch indicated that they would have denied the plaintiffs’ request, thereby allowing the 8th Circuit’s decision to go into effect right away. As is common with cases that come to the court on its emergency docket, neither the majority nor the dissenters provided any explanation for their decisions.

ScotusCrim is a recurring series by Rory Little focusing on intersections between the Supreme Court and criminal law.

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

Welcome to the second installment of ScotusCrim, a recurring column focused on criminal-law-and-related cases at the Supreme Court. Today I focus on juries and sentencing in criminal cases; and at the end I introduce a feature called “Out of My Lane” in which I hope to offer brief thoughts on non-criminal aspects of Supreme Court practice.

One of the cases the Supreme Court will hear during the 2025-26 term started with a haircut.

Damon Landor’s head was forcibly shaved in 2020 after he arrived at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center, part of the Louisiana prison system. Landor had shared legal documents showing that Rastafarian prisoners growing their hair for religious reasons had to be allowed to keep their dreadlocks, but a guard threw the papers in the trash and called the warden, who ordered the guards to proceed with the cut.