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.

The Supreme Court will close out its 2025-26 term with oral arguments in cases involving immigration law, the Fourth Amendment, generic drug labels, and the availability of claims alleging that a private company aided and abetted torture and serious violations of international human rights laws. The justices on Wednesday morning released the calendar for their April argument session, which is the final regularly scheduled argument session of the term. They will hear eight arguments over six days, beginning on April 20 and ending on April 29.