SCOTUStoday for Friday, October 31

Happy Halloween to those who celebrate! Did you know that Halloween helped Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett connect when Barrett first joined the court? Barrett has repeatedly shared the story of Sotomayor making candy bags for her kids after her confirmation.

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• We’re less than one week away from the start of the court’s November sitting. On Wednesday, we previewed Rico v. United States and Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, which will be argued on Monday. Yesterday, we previewed Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton and The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, which are set to be argued on Tuesday, and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which is set to be argued on Wednesday.
• The Trump administration’s request to change the current rules for sex markers on passports is among the interim docket cases that are fully briefed and awaiting a ruling. In Trump v. Illinois, on President Donald Trump’s authority to federalize and deploy National Guard troops in Illinois, additional briefs are due by Nov. 10.
• SCOTUSblog will host a live blog during oral arguments in Learning Resources on President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Amy Howe will be interviewed on C-SPAN before the arguments, the live blog will be hosted on that network, and Zachary Shemtob will be interviewed on C-SPAN after the arguments have ended.

Morning Reads

• Trump’s trade war backup plan (Joseph Zeballos-Roig, Quartz) — In the tariffs case, the Supreme Court will consider the president’s authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. However, this is not the only law on which Trump has relied in imposing tariffs, which explains why many tariffs will remain in place even if the court rules that Trump exceeded his authority under IEEPA, according to Quartz. “Tariffs that wouldn’t be affected by the Supreme Court case include the 50% steel and aluminum tariffs, coupled with a battering ram of import taxes on lumber, furniture, and copper.”
• The Supreme Court Is More Interested in Second Amendment Cases Than Ever Before (Chip Brownlee, The Trace) — The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling stating that modern gun laws have to “align with historical firearm regulations to be constitutional” sparked thousands of challenges to gun regulations across the country over the past three years, according to The Trace. This term, the justices will consider two such cases: Wolford v. Lopez, on “whether states can ban people from carrying guns at businesses, restaurants, and other private property unless the property owner gives express permission,” and United States v. Hemani, on “whether people who use drugs should legally be allowed to have guns.”
• Florida cases seeking death penalty for child sex abuse could test precedent in Supreme Court (Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal) — In 2008, the Supreme Court held that a Louisiana law allowing the death penalty in cases involving the crime of raping a child was unconstitutional. But since then, several states, including Florida and Tennessee, have passed similar laws as part of an effort to get the court to reconsider that 2008 ruling, according to the ABA Journal. As of this month, Florida is “seeking the death penalty in [two] trials for child sex-abuse cases.”
• GOP lawmakers urge Trump administration to back Falun Gong lawsuit against Cisco (Dake Kang and Byron Tau, Associated Press) — “Two prominent Republicans on Capitol Hill” are urging the Trump administration to ask the Supreme Court “to allow a lawsuit to proceed against tech giant Cisco over allegations that the company’s technology was used to persecute members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement in China,” according the Associated Press. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the case could continue, but Cisco appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. In May, “the court sought the views of the solicitor general.”
• Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Delivers Inspiring Message at CSUDH (Los Angeles Sentinel News Service) — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized the value of working hard and engaging with politics during her recent appearance at California State University, Dominguez Hills. “I think it’s going to take us all to really focus on what is going on and continue to invest in this country, our communities, our families, and ourselves, in order to ensure that we can continue to maintain a free and fair democracy,” she said, according to the Los Angeles Sentinel.

A Closer Look: John Jay, the First Chief

This is the first in a new series of Closer Look entries, in which we’ll be providing snapshots of some of the court’s most influential justices so that you can impress people at really boring cocktail parties. We begin, naturally, with John Jay, the first chief justice.

Chief Justice John Marshall may get all the attention, but John Jay was there first. Born in 1745, Jay grew up in Rye, New York (where he is buried today), and graduated from King’s College (now Columbia University) at 19. After a stint as a law clerk for a prominent practitioner, Jay built a successful law practice of his own. But the young lawyer soon became caught up in larger historical events. As tensions with Britain escalated, in 1776 Jay came to chair New York’s Committee for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies, directing agents to expose Loyalist schemes, including a plot to assassinate George Washington.

Post-revolution, Jay focused on strengthening national unity. He joined secret Paris talks in 1782, securing terms in the Treaty of Paris that formally ended the Revolutionary War. As secretary for foreign affairs, Jay also co-authored five essays in the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius,” focused on the dangers from international forces and influences if states remained disunited.

In 1789, George Washington appointed Jay as the first chief justice. At the time this was a rather sleepy job: the nascent court decided just four cases in six years. Having relatively little to do on the court, Jay was able to continue his diplomatic duties, including acting as secretary of foreign affairs and negotiating the 1794 “Jay Treaty” with Britain. The treaty averted war but drew public outrage, and the Congressional fight over its passage is said to have led to the creation of national parties.

As for Jay’s court duties, perhaps his most famous decision was in Chisholm v. Georgia, written in 1793, in which Jay declared that sovereignty rested with the people as a unified nation, not individual states, thus allowing citizens to sue states in federal court. This ruling prompted ratification of the Eleventh Amendment limiting suits against states. Much to his dissatisfaction, Jay also practiced “circuit riding,” in which Supreme Court justices were forced to travel the republic to hear cases in different judicial districts.

In 1795, Jay resigned from the Supreme Court to serve as New York’s governor, where he signed a 1799 act for the gradual abolition of slavery in the state. In 1800, President John Adams offered to appoint him again as chief justice. But Jay turned it down, stating the court lacked the “energy, weight, and dignity” essential for public respect. Shortly thereafter, Jay retired to his farm and devoted time to philanthropy, such as leading the American Bible Society. He died in 1829 at the age of 83, having made his mark on American history, even if not necessarily as chief justice.

SCOTUS Quote

“This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added.”

— Justice Robert H. Jackson in Douglas v. City of Jeannette

On Site

Case Previews

Amy Howe on Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

Have you got questions about the tariffs case in front of the Supreme Court? Amy has answers. In her case preview, she explored the issues involved, how the tariffs dispute made it to the court, and when the court is likely to issue its ruling.

Kelsey Dallas on Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider a disagreement among the federal courts of appeals over whether there is a time limit for setting aside a judgment as void for lack of personal jurisdiction – that is, because the trial court did not have the authority to exercise power over the litigant. Kelsey previewed the case for SCOTUSblog.

Ronald Mann on The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist

Also on Tuesday, in a case involving Whole Foods and allegedly dangerous baby food, the Supreme Court will consider what to do when a trial court improperly dismisses a defendant who would have deprived it of jurisdiction to hear the case. In his case preview, Ronald wrote that what surprises him most about the case “is that pretty clearly neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has spoken to this question explicitly.” The justices, he added, “have a somewhat free hand here in deciding what to do.”