Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Last month, the Supreme Court held oral argument on two landmark anti-discrimination cases: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. The states in these cases – Idaho and West Virginia – passed laws categorically banning trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams. Two trans girls who underwent gender-affirming medical treatments while young challenged the laws as a violation of the equal protection clause and Title IX, which prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” in “any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Civil Rights and Wrongs is a recurring series by Daniel Harawa covering criminal justice and civil rights cases before the court.

On Jan. 20, in what would be an otherwise unremarkable order, the Supreme Court dismissed Danny Howell’s petition for review, denying his request to proceed “in forma pauperis” – a request to forgo having to pay the court’s filing fees and comply with the court’s printing requirements because he is financially unable to do so. But the court did not just deny Howell’s request and dismiss his petition. It went far further, barring Howell from filing any future noncriminal petitions in forma pauperis, “Martin-izing” him.

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Tradition may have been a balancing force in “Fiddler on the Roof” but nowadays it has originalists feeling out of whack. Originalists unite around the belief that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to their original public meaning; that is, how these provisions would have been understood at the time of their ratification. But what counts as evidence of original public meaning? And can post-ratification practices play a role?

Lawyers for the state of California on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to leave in place a new congressional map intended to give Democrats five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Christopher Hu, the deputy solicitor general of California, called the desire by Republicans to retain a majority in the House a “natural political objective.” But it is “deeply unnatural,” the state contended, for a group of California Republicans challenging the map to ask the justices “to step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage by enjoining California’s partisan gerrymander after having allowed” Texas to implement a map intended to allow Republicans to pick up five additional seats in that state.

On Nov. 5, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the challenges to President Donald Trump’s authority to impose broad tariffs through a series of executive orders that he issued in 2025. As is often the case with high-profile cases, there is enormous interest in how the court will rule. But with U.S. importers paying billions of dollars each month in tariffs, another pressing question for many is when the court will issue its decision.