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.

This term, the Supreme Court’s oral argument docket has had a distinctly public-facing quality. Many of the biggest arguments have involved disputes that reach well beyond the parties and into the country’s political life: redistricting in Louisiana v. Callais, presidential tariff authority in Learning Resources v. Trump, presidential removal power and the Federal Reserve in Trump v. Cook, and birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, which was argued on April 1. Even by the standards of the modern Roberts court, that is a striking concentration of cases touching elections, executive power, and the very architecture of government. That docket has naturally drawn attention to outcomes. But it also offers a useful chance to look at something more granular: the nature of oral argument itself. Which advocates are carrying the heaviest load? Which justices are speaking most often? Which cases become justice-dominated exchanges, and which leave more room for uninterrupted advocacy? And what does that tell us about how the law itself is being shaped?

Updated on April 1 at 7:48 p.m.

As soon as President Donald Trump last evening mentioned attending argument in the birthright citizenship case in Trump v. Barbara today, some Supreme Court reporters were dubious. After all, he had floated the idea of attending the big tariff case in December before deciding against it (or being talked out of it).

Oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, have concluded, but the conversation isn’t over. Listen now to a special live broadcast of the Advisory Opinions podcast about what the justices said and what could happen next.

Advisory Opinions host Sarah Isgur is joined by SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe, David French, Amanda Tyler, and Akhil Amar.

On Wednesday, April 1, we will be live blogging as the court hears argument in Trump v. Barbara, on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

Note: A login is not required to participate in the chat.

Also, to those of you who are in the legal profession, we would be very grateful if you could fill out this brief survey about your work.

The Supreme Court on Monday considered whether federal prosecutors can try a defendant not only in the district where the offense occurs, but also where the crime’s “contemplated effects” are felt. During the roughly 80-minute argument in Abouammo v. United States, the justices seemed to suggest that the answer was no, with several of them pressing the government on whether its approach was both rooted in the text of the statute at issue and faithful to the Constitution.