Skip to content
Newsletter

Opinion(s) on the way

Carved details along top of Supreme Court building are pictured
(Katie Barlow)

Good morning, and welcome to what’s expected to be April’s first opinion day. We will be live blogging beginning at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

At the Court

After the possible announcement of opinions this morning, the justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from that conference are expected on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

Also on Monday, the court will hear oral 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.

Morning Reads

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas blasts progressivism as threat to America

Devin Dwyer, ABC News

Justice Clarence Thomas spoke on Wednesday at a University of Texas Austin Law School event tied to America’s founding 250 years ago. During his remarks, Thomas criticized the political philosophy of progressivism, presenting it as an existential threat, according to ABC News. “Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government,” he said. “Thomas said Washington has been overrun by elected and appointed officials who lack commitment to ‘righteous cause, to traditional morality, to national defense, to free enterprise, to religious piety or to the original meaning of the Constitution.’”

Sniping by justices underscores tension over Supreme Court’s ‘shadow docket’

John Fritze, CNN

Highlighting viral comments from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson about one or more of their conservative colleagues and requests for emergency relief from the Trump administration, CNN noted that the “Supreme Court’s emergency docket has resurfaced as a flashpoint within the federal judiciary” even as the court’s attention shifts from that docket to its merits docket. “The revived criticism of the process has landed as the Supreme Court is heading into its most intense period, with justices working behind the scenes to draft opinions in the most significant merits cases ahead of summer recess. … At the same time, the emergency docket itself has lightened considerably this year as challenges to many of Trump’s most controversial early domestic policies have either run their course or already reached the high court.”

Cruz says Trump ‘spoke to me seriously’ about Supreme Court vacancies

Ashleigh Fields, The Hill

During a Wall Street Journal Opinion Live interview on Wednesday, Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, “said President Trump spoke to him ‘seriously’ about filling a hypothetical Supreme Court vacancy in his first term,” according to The Hill. “[T]he president spoke to me seriously about all three vacancies, and three times I said no, because I don’t want to be out of the arena of the political battle,” Cruz said. He added, “I don’t want to be a judge. A principled federal judge stays out of policy fights and stays out of political fights. If I were a judge, I would do that. I don’t want to do that. I want to be right in the middle of political and policy fights.”

Most Tariff Refunds Facing Denial If Importers Don’t Opt In

Erik Larson, Bloomberg

In a Tuesday filing with the Court of International Trade, Customs and Border Protection explained that “[t]he vast majority of importers who paid $166 billion in tariffs that were overturned by the US Supreme Court risk not getting refunds because they haven’t signed up for electronic payment,” according to Bloomberg. “Only about 20% of the roughly 300,000 firms eligible to receive electronic refunds have signed up for the process. … The agency has previously said it will reject non-electronic refund requests.” Greg Husisian, a partner at Foley & Lardner representing companies seeking refunds, told Bloomberg that smaller companies “may not even know” about the refund process.

I Almost Never Predict Supreme Court Outcomes. Trump Will Lose This Case.

Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times

In a column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse reflected on the Supreme Court’s decision to hear argument later this month on the Trump administration’s effort to remove protected immigration status from hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants. Although, as she explained, she rarely predicts how the court will rule, Greenhouse feels confident that the court will side with the Haitians and Syrians. Why? “My prediction here rests on one word: procedure,” she wrote. “The records in both the Haitian and Syrian cases reveal a brazen violation of procedural requirements on the part of” the Department of Homeland Security, Greenhouse contended, noting that the Supreme Court has emphasized “procedural irregularity” in past rulings against Trump.

On Site

From the SCOTUSblog Team

Why does the government keep showing up at the Supreme Court uninvited?

Although the federal government frequently files “friend of the court” briefs in the Supreme Court, it has been – at least until recently – unusual for it to do so at its own initiative when a petition for review is still pending. What led to the surge in “uninvited” briefs?

Snow flurries fall outisde the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on March 12, 2026.
Contributor Corner

What cases might the court grant next?

In his Empirical SCOTUS column, Adam Feldman analyzed the petitions for review being tracked on SCOTUSblog’s petitions page, exploring which ones carry the strongest likelihood of being granted.

Pulsifer v. US
SCOTUS Outside Opinions

The (non-)partisan puzzle in the conversion therapy case

In a column for SCOTUSblog, Craig Konnoth revisited the court’s 8-1 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, holding that Colorado’s law prohibiting licensed counselors from seeking to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors was subject to strict First Amendment scrutiny. Specifically, Konnoth reflected on the significance of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan’s decision to join the majority.

The US Supreme Court is seen in Washington, DC on February 8, 2022.

Podcasts

Advisory Opinions

There Is No Historic Defeat for Civil Rights

Sarah Isgur takes a break from her whirlwind book tour to deliver the legal goods with David French. They discuss a Washington Post piece on civil rights data during the Trump era, Chiles v. Salazar, and free speech and AI liability in child porn.

SCOTUS Quote

JUSTICE SCALIA: “Is there – is there a difference between the function of the sign and the content of the sign?”

MR. SAVRIN: “Yes, Your Honor.”

JUSTICE SCALIA: “I frankly can’t grasp that. What is it?”

MR. SAVRIN: “Well, it depends on how –“

JUSTICE SCALIA: “Doesn’t its function depend upon its content?”

MR. SAVRIN: “In a literal sense, yes.”

JUSTICE SCALIA: “Oh, I see. What sense are we talking here?”

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: “Poetic?”

MR. SAVRIN: “Well, both –”

Reed v. Town of Gilbert  (2015)

Recommended Citation: Kelsey Dallas and Nora Collins, Opinion(s) on the way, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 17, 2026, 9:00 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/04/opinions-on-the-way/