The morning read for Monday, September 8

We’re thrilled to announce some changes to what you will be receiving every morning! Beginning today, we’re offering a summary of the news rather than simply linking to news articles. And in the next few weeks, you can expect an expanded newsletter, which will not only contain the morning reads, but, among other items, an analysis of key developments at SCOTUS.

As before, please send any questions or comments to [email protected]. We are very excited to have you join us for this next phase of SCOTUSblog!

Without further ado, here’s the Monday morning read:

• Adam Liptak of The New York Times reported that former Justice Stephen Breyer, who retired in 2022, has spoken out in support of U.S. District Judge William Young, who was recently “accused” by Justice Neil Gorsuch in a concurring opinion of defying a previous emergency docket decision in a case on the Trump administration’s termination of health research grants. Last week, Young apologized to Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined the opinion, explaining that he didn’t know emergency orders are binding precedent. While Breyer didn’t directly address Gorsuch’s opinion in his interview with Liptak, he spoke about his belief that Young is respectful of higher courts, calling him “honest” and “a very decent person and a good judge.” According to Liptak, “Justice Breyer’s comments were the latest indication of growing tensions within the judiciary, as courts grapple with the flood of lawsuits prompted by the Trump administration’s sweeping efforts to remake the government, and as trial judges struggle to interpret the Supreme Court’s emergency orders.”
• The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to take up a case on President Donald Trump’s tariffs, but according to Garrett Haake, Carol E. Lee, and Jonathan Allen at NBC News, it’s not operating as if the court’s conservative majority will necessarily leave the tariffs in place. Rather, the administration is exploring “alternative methods for imposing import taxes on foreign goods,” such as a 1962 law that allows a president to adjust duties in the interest of national security. “Regardless of the court outcome, the Trump administration will make the case to the public that Trump has a national security prerogative to continue levying tariffs,” a senior White House official said.
• Even if the Trump administration lands on a back-up plan it feels confident about, a Supreme Court ruling against the tariffs would be significant, in part because it would require refunds. “We would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” according to Ari Hawkins of Politico. “Asked by anchor Kristen Welker if the administration was prepared to provide those refunds, Bessent replied, ‘If the court says it, we’d have to do it.’ He added that he was confident Trump would win the case,” Hawkins wrote.
• Speaking of the tariffs case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said it’s “likely” that the court will decide to hear it in an interview that aired over the weekend on “CBS News Sunday Morning.” Justin Jouvenal of The Washington Post highlighted that comment in his story on Barrett’s new memoir, which will be released on Tuesday. In the book, called “Listening to the Law,” the justice says little about her relationship with Trump, according to Jouvenal, but she does address her effort to keep her political beliefs from influencing her decisions. “My office doesn’t entitle me to align the legal system with my moral or policy views,” she wrote.
• Although the tariffs case has dominated headlines lately, it’s far from the only legal battle that’s complicating the Trump administration’s policy plans. In just the past week, federal judges have ruled against the administration in cases on planned deportations, the use of the National Guard in Los Angeles, and funding cuts, CBC’s Mike Crawley reported. However, these rulings won’t be the final word on the issues, since the cases are expected to eventually make it to the Supreme Court. “It seems like the executive, the Trump administration, is saying, ‘Hey, we’ll just keep moving forward. Even if these lower courts have disagreed with us, we’re fairly confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold our power to do these things,” said Peter Larsen, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, to Crawley.