A Republican member of Congress, a group of voters, and New York election officials asked the Supreme Court to allow the state to proceed with the 2026 elections using its existing congressional map. This followed an order by a state court barring New York from using the map, and requiring the state to redraw the map because, according to the state court, it diluted the votes of Blacks and Latinos in the only congressional district in New York City represented by a Republican, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis. Malliotakis told the justices that the state court’s decision would require the state “to adopt an unconstitutional racial gerrymander” – that is, to sort voters based on race. Peter Kosinski, a Republican co-chair of the state’s board of elections, echoed Malliotakis’ concerns, telling the court that if it does not put the lower court’s ruling on hold “by February 23, 2026, New York’s congressional elections will be thrown into chaos and uncertainty.”

The district at the center of the dispute is New York’s 11th Congressional District, which is based on Staten Island but also extends into parts of southern Brooklyn. In October 2025, a group of voters went to state court, where they argued that the district’s boundaries violated the state’s constitution by diluting the votes of Black and Latino voters, who now make up approximately 30% of the population of Staten Island, while the population of white voters has dropped to 56%. Specifically, they contended, the district’s boundaries did not give its black and Latino residents an equal opportunity to elect a representative of their choice.

AV Ristorante is a recurring series by Brian Fitzpatrick.

Ten years ago today, my old boss Supreme Court Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia passed away. At the time of his death, it was clear that he was already one of the most influential justices ever to serve on the court. Today, this statement is even more true. No matter where you look – courtrooms, law firms, even law school classrooms – Scalia and his ideas are ubiquitous.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 1 in the challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States. Like another high-profile case argued earlier this term, involving the challenge to Trump’s tariffs, the dispute has thus far garnered a large number of amicus or “friend of the court” briefs – 18 in support of the Trump administration and one that, although theoretically in support of neither side, tends to favor the administration.

I highlight some of the arguments made in the briefs supporting the Trump administration below. When the “friend of the court” briefs supporting the challengers are all filed later this month, I will discuss those in a separate story.

A Second Opinion is a recurring series by Haley Proctor on the Second Amendment and constitutional litigation.

As has been observed by Rory Little at SCOTUSblog, the party presentation principle is on the rise at the Supreme Court. The principle stands for the simple idea that the parties control their case – what claims they bring, what defenses they raise, what arguments they make, what evidence they present – and that these choices potentially limit how courts may decide the case. The party presentation principle presents a puzzle for courts in cases that involve matters of broader public interest, like gun rights. In this month’s column, I introduce the principle and then explore its implications for Second Amendment litigation and beyond.

As the Trump administration’s immigration policies continue to dominate headlines, and as legal battles over deportation procedures and the protected status of certain immigrant groups draw closer to the Supreme Court, the justices already are wrestling with four immigration-related questions, including, most notably, whether President Donald Trump has the authority to make the grant of automatic citizenship to children contingent on their parents’ immigration status.