In Dissent is a recurring series by Anastasia Boden on Supreme Court dissents that have shaped (or reshaped) our country.

I. The artist formerly known as Prince

It was 1981, and Prince was not yet Prince. He was Prince Rogers Nelson, an “up and coming” 22-year-old artist, whom Lynn Goldsmith persuaded Newsweek to allow her to photograph. Prince may have been a newcomer, but Goldsmith was not. She was a respected rock-and-roll photographer known for her intimate portraits of rockstars, including Van Halen, James Brown, and Mick Jagger. In Prince she saw someone still figuring out who he was before the world decided that he was a star. She sat him in front of a simple white backdrop. Nothing grand. His eyes dark, steady, but vulnerable.

In Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States, argued on Wednesday, the Supreme Court considered what constitutes permissible grounds for a federal inmate to claim to have “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the defendants’ claims in both cases. 

Late last week, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett took center stage at the Federalist Society’s annual gala in the nation’s capital, offering reflections on what it means to take the judicial oath and deal with public scrutiny. Moderated by Judge Trevor McFadden, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Antonin Scalia Memorial Dinner saw the justices address a sold-out crowd at the Washington Hilton on the first night of the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention. Barrett and Kavanaugh’s remarks echoed broader discussions at the convention on the Supreme Court’s embrace of originalism and the triumph of this judicial philosophy. 

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.

Among a president’s most enduring legacies are the federal judges they appoint – particularly Supreme Court justices. This permanence stems from life tenure, a constitutional provision that ensures judicial independence but also transforms each appointment into a generational bet on the nation’s legal future.

If you’ve followed coverage of the Supreme Court’s 2025-26 term over the past few months, you’d likely say this term’s theme is executive power. The court already has added three major cases on the scope of presidential authority to its oral arguments docket – the tariffs dispute and two battles over removing federal agency leaders – and will have the opportunity to take up more, including cases on President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The court is also fielding several requests related to executive power on the interim docket, perhaps most prominently being Trump’s deployment of the National Guard.