Court adds two cases to 2026-27 docket

On Monday, the court added two cases to its oral argument docket for the 2026-27 term. One is a religious liberty case concerning a Catholic preschool challenging its exclusion from a Colorado “universal preschool” program. The other is a Texas man’s challenge to his sentence for possession of a gun. The court also summarily reversed, over the objections of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a decision from Washington, D.C.’s highest court that had thrown out the convictions of a teenage driver over the actions of the arresting officer. For other takeaways from Monday’s order list, see the On Site section below.

Also on Monday, the justices heard argument in two cases: Sripetch v. SEC, on whether the Securities and Exchange Commission can use disgorgement to force a wrongdoer to turn over its profits to the government without showing directly that the wrongdoer’s activities harmed its customers; and T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., on whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which limits lower federal courts’ authority to review state-court judgments, applies when such judgments remain subject to further review in state courts.

Today, the justices will hear argument in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc., on whether the FCC violates the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a right to a jury trial when it imposes fines for violations of federal communications laws.

The court has indicated that it may announce opinions tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. EDT. We will be live blogging beginning at 9:30 a.m.

On Monday, two months after the Supreme Court released its tariffs ruling, the federal government began accepting requests for tariff refunds. “For some U.S. businesses, the highly anticipated refunds could be substantial, offering critical if belated financial relief,” according to The New York Times. And although the process for “submitting documentation to the government to recover what they paid in illegal tariffs” was working as expected on Monday, some business leaders are still feeling uncertain about how quickly they’ll receive a refund – or if they’ll receive one at all. “I wouldn’t say I’m at all optimistic that they are going to come in a timely manner,” said Cassie Abel, the founder and chief executive of the clothing company Wild Rye. The Times noted that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has said “it expected it would take 60 to 90 days to issue a refund once it accepts an importer’s filing.”

In May, Justice Neil Gorsuch “will release his first children’s book,” “an illustrated storybook about America’s Founding Fathers, timed to the nation’s 250th birthday.” In doing so, Gorsuch will further a trend toward writing for younger audiences that’s sweeping through the Supreme Court, according to The Washington Post. “Justice Sonia Sotomayor has published five books for younger audiences,” and “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson released a young-adult version of her memoir, ‘Lovely One.’” The article explained that justices “can make tens of thousands of dollars from diving into kid lit,” noting Sotomayor “has reported receiving more than $870,000 in total in advances and royalties from 2017 to 2024, a period in which she published three children’s books and one for young adults.”

Eight firefighters who sued their employer for religious discrimination in 2022 after being placed on leave over their refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19 “have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case,” according to The Seattle Times. The firefighters allege that Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue “violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination, and Washington’s Law Against Discrimination” by refusing to make reasonable accommodations that would have allowed them to remain unvaccinated while continuing to work. They are seeking “backpay for the time they were on unpaid leave, and unspecified damages.” A federal district court in Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the fire agency.

As Kalshi – a prediction market that offers user-to-user event contracts rather than traditional bets and thus seeks to be regulated like a stock market – has become more popular, “state governments and Native American tribes … have filed a flood of legal challenges” against the company, alleging that “Kalshi is running an unlicensed gambling operation,” according to Fortune. “Judges in at least three states have agreed with this argument, but others have sided with Kalshi and held instead that its sports wagers are a unique type of contract allowed by federal law.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit recently became the first federal appeals court to weigh in and ruled for Kalshi, but the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is expected to rule against the company later this year. “If that occurs, or if another appeals court rules against Kalshi, the issue will be teed up for the Supreme Court by next year, according to gaming industry lawyers, who believe this is a likely outcome.”