SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, January 13

Today, SCOTUSblog will be live as the Supreme Court hears arguments in two cases on transgender athletes. Tomorrow, we will be live for the court’s second opinion day of the 2025-26 term. The live blogging will begin at 9:30 a.m. EST on both days.

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• On Monday, the court released an order list announcing denied petitions and other updates.
• Also on Monday, the justices heard argument in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, on the circumstances in which a federal contractor can transfer a case from state to federal court. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate because he has a financial interest in ConocoPhillips, which is the parent company of one of the defendants. For more on Monday’s argument, see the On Site section below.
• Today, the justices will hear arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., on laws barring transgender athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams. We will be live blogging the arguments beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST.
• The court has indicated that it may announce opinions tomorrow at 10 a.m. EST. SCOTUSblog will be live blogging any opinion announcements beginning at 9:30.
• After any opinion announcement(s), the justices will hear argument in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation. For more on the case, check out the On Site section at this newsletter’s end.

Morning Reads

• Federal Prosecutors Open Investigation Into Fed Chair Powell (Glenn Thrush and Colby Smith, The New York Times)(Paywall) — As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral argument on Jan. 21 on President Donald Trump’s effort to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, from office, tension is ramping up between the Trump administration and Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve. On Sunday, it was revealed that the “U.S. attorney’s office in the District of Columbia has opened a criminal investigation into” Powell “over the central bank’s renovation of its Washington headquarters and whether Mr. Powell lied to Congress about the scope of the project,” according to The New York Times. “[I]n a rare video message released by the Fed” on Sunday, Powell “described the investigation as ‘unprecedented’ and questioned the motivation for the move, even as he affirmed that he carried out his duties as chair ‘without political fear or favor.'”
• Trump says ‘we’re screwed’ if Supreme Court rules against his tariffs (Yahoo Finance) — In a Monday social media post, the president once again warned the Supreme Court against striking down his signature tariffs. “If the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America on this National Security bonanza, WE’RE SCREWED!” Trump wrote, according to Yahoo Finance. The court’s ruling in the tariffs case could come as soon as Wednesday.
• Supreme Court won’t reopen Boy Scouts sex abuse settlement plan (Maureen Groppe, USA Today) — Monday’s order list noted that the justices denied review in Lujan Claimants v. Boy Scouts of America, a challenge to the Boy Scouts’ $2.5 billion settlement with sexual abuse survivors. The case was brought to the court by “75 abuse survivors in Guam. Their attorneys argued the deal should be blocked in line with the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision that upended the bankruptcy settlement with the company that made OxyContin,” according to USA Today.
• US Supreme Court rebuffs Citigroup appeal in lawsuit over Mexican oil company fraud (Jonathan Stempel, Reuters)(Paywall) — Monday’s order list also noted that the court will not “hear Citigroup’s bid to avoid a lawsuit accusing the bank of causing more than $1 billion of losses by orchestrating a vast fraud at the bankrupt Mexican oil and gas services company Oceanografia,” according to Reuters. By declining to take up the case, the justices left in place a May 2025 decision that revived a “decade-old lawsuit by more than 30 plaintiffs including Oceanografia bondholders, shipping companies and Netherlands-based Rabobank,” who accused Citigroup “of advancing $3.3 billion to Oceanografia between 2008 and 2014, despite knowing that the company had too much debt and had forged Pemex signatures on authorization forms.”
• Spending bill would boost court security, public defenders (Ryan Tarinelli, Roll Call) — On Sunday, lawmakers released a “compromise fiscal 2026 funding bill” that “would provide major increases for federal public defenders as well as a court security account,” fully funding the requests made by “the judiciary in those two areas,” according to Roll Call. “[T]he bill would provide $892 million for the judiciary’s court security account for fiscal 2026, an increase of $142 million compared to fiscal 2025.” The money is expected to “go toward security system maintenance and repair, courthouse hardening and security infrastructure for new courthouses, among other equipment.”

A Closer Look: The Shadow Docket Sunlight Act

The Supreme Court’s “other docket” – also known as its interim docket, emergency docket, shadow docket, or stay docket – is facing congressional scrutiny. In mid-December, a group of Democratic senators and representatives (and one Independent) introduced a bill in both the House and Senate called the Shadow Docket Sunlight Act that aims to force the court to explain its decisions on requests for interim relief and to reveal how each justice voted.

According to the bill’s primary sponsors, such transparency is necessary in order for “justice to be fair.” As it stands, the court regularly issues “consequential decisions on short notice without oral argument” and rarely explains how it came to its decision, a practice that is particularly frustrating, the sponsors said, in certain high-profile disputes involving the Trump administration.

“The Roberts Court’s reliance on the Shadow Docket to covertly fast-track one-paragraph decisions on major cases drives tremendous mistrust toward Justices already facing record-low levels of public confidence,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a sponsor of the bill and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. “The Shadow Docket Sunlight Act would peel back the curtain hiding a Court using the Shadow Docket to centralize power in the president and undercut the rights and freedoms of the people.”

The bill is an updated version of a measure of the same name introduced in 2024. The new version includes a more specific set of requirements the court is to provide in its explanation of a decision, including an evaluation of whether the applicant “is likely to succeed on the merits” and “likely to suffer irreparable harm absent” the court’s intervention, as well as whether the requested stay or preliminary injunctive relief “is in the public interest.” These are among the factors a court traditionally considers when assessing a request for interim relief. Like the 2024 bill, the new proposal would empower the Federal Judicial Center to report annually on the court’s compliance with the act.

The Shadow Docket Sunlight Act has been endorsed by a variety of legal organizations, such as the National Women’s Law Center, Fix the Court, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. On the Dec. 23 episode of the Advisory Opinions podcast, Sarah Isgur and David French pushed back against the proposal, contending that, while longer opinions would be a good thing, requiring them could have unintended consequences – like greatly increasing the amount of time it takes the court to address an urgent request. “This is taking something that is a problem … [and] perhaps making everything worse,” French said. French also noted that “there are some separation of powers issues here,” because it’s unclear if Congress can tell the Supreme Court how to do its job in this manner.

Certain members of the court would likely also be opposed to the act. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for example, has said that longer opinions aren’t a good fit for the interim docket, where the court must move quickly and consider only a narrow aspect of a case. “Once justices write out full reasoning and sign onto a view, it’s harder to change your mind later,” Barrett said during an October appearance at Georgetown University Law Center. “The interim docket is not a full merits disposition, and if we write too much, it risks becoming one.”

In the House, the Shadow Docket Sunlight Act is awaiting action in the House Judiciary Committee. In the Senate, it’s awaiting action in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SCOTUS Quote

JUSTICE KENNEDY: “Don’t tell us we’re not working hard enough.”

MR. BROOKS: “I do recall, Justice Kennedy, that once upon a time, the Court took 150 cases a year. Maybe foreclosures could be among them.”

JUSTICE KENNEDY: “They were easier cases.”

MR. BROOKS: “Perhaps I should sit down.”

— Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp.

On Site

From the SCOTUSblog Team

Why Supreme Court reporters don’t make early dinner plans – and what that says about the court

Over the past six months, the court released most of its interim orders late in the day near the end of the week, according to an analysis by Kelsey Dallas. That pattern is problematic – and not just because it complicates the lives of Supreme Court reporters.

Argument Analysis

Court hears arguments in suit attempting to find companies responsible for damage to Louisiana coast

The Supreme Court on Monday grappled with whether oil and gas companies can move a lawsuit seeking to hold them responsible for damage to the Louisiana coast from state to federal court. According to Amy, it is difficult to predict who will prevail based on Monday’s arguments.

Case Preview

Court to consider extent to which New Jersey Transit can be held liable for injuries in other states

On Wednesday, the court will hear argument in a pair of disputes stemming from accidents in Philadelphia and New York City involving buses operated by the New Jersey Transit Corporation. The key question at the center of both cases is whether NJ Transit can be sued in state courts in Pennsylvania and New York.