ScotusCrim is a recurring series by Rory Little focusing on intersections between the Supreme Court and criminal law.

Imagine: A group of drug dealers beat and shoot dead a citizen they felt was interfering with their work. There are witnesses as well as video evidence establishing these facts and enabling identifications. The gang is in constant electronic communication with their bosses who are miles away in a plush office. With the bosses’ knowledge and approval, the drug dealers do a hurried clean-up of the scene and spirit away the shooters and physical evidence before law enforcement can investigate.

Updated on Feb. 10 at 11:40 a.m.

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning the court’s recognition of a constitutional right to an abortion. To justify their opinions in Dobbs, the justices cited six different briefs submitted by scholars. This intense marshaling of academic expertise exemplifies a broader transformation in Supreme Court practice: Justices increasingly turn to such briefs not merely for doctrinal support but for historical practices, empirical claims, and constitutional analysis.

Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. At issue was whether Idaho and West Virginia laws that prohibit transgender women and girls from competing on schools’ female sports teams violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause and Title IX, a federal civil rights law that bars sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding. The cases generated a great deal of attention, and by arguments’ end there was a consensus that the court was “skeptical of challenges to bans on trans athletes.”

Cases and Controversies is a recurring series by Carolyn Shapiro, primarily focusing on the effects of the Supreme Court’s rulings, opinions, and procedures on the law, on other institutions, and on our constitutional democracy more generally.

In the first weeks of 2026, we’ve seen two U.S. citizens shot and killed by federal Department of Homeland Security agents in Minneapolis. Anyone who follows the news has seen numerous videos and pictures of DHS agents knocking people to the ground, pulling them out of cars, spraying them directly in the face with pepper spray or other chemicals, arresting them with no warrants, demanding proof of citizenship from people of color (and sometimes then rejecting it), and so on. I detailed some of this conduct in late December. It has not abated.

Immigration Matters is a recurring series by César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández that analyzes the court’s immigration docket, highlighting emerging legal questions about new policy and enforcement practices.

Last month, the Department of Justice filed its brief with the Supreme Court in the high-stakes legal fight over birthright citizenship. According to the government, the justices should side with the Trump administration because the president’s executive order faithfully applies the intended meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states that all “persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are U.S. citizens. Urging the justices to dive into the past, the Justice Department cites 19th-century books, letters, judicial opinions, and even a funeral speech in support of President Donald Trump’s attempt to narrow access to citizenship at birth. But in mining written texts from more than a century ago, the government’s brief plucks phrases that it favors while ignoring the political movement to dramatically expand citizenship in which the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution.