SCOTUStoday for Friday, October 10

And just like that, the first week of the 2025-26 term is nearly over. In the SCOTUS Quick Hits section below, you’ll find links to SCOTUSblog’s coverage of all six cases that were argued.

Morning Reads

• Alex Jones asks Supreme Court to block massive defamation judgment (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News) — Conservative radio show host Alex Jones has asked the court to “hit pause on an almost $1.5 billion defamation judgment that was imposed over his false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax,” according to NBC News. “Jones said the court’s immediate involvement is needed because his website, InfoWars, is on the verge of being turned over to the satirical news site The Onion to help fund payments to family members of the Sandy Hook victims.” Jones previously asked the court to hear his appeal of that judgment, and the justices are scheduled to consider that petition at their private conference today.
• Families drop challenge to Utah trans student sports ban as US Supreme Court takes up similar cases (Annie Knox, Utah News Dispatch) — After “more than three years of legal wrangling,” two Utah families “have dropped their lawsuit challenging the state’s ban on transgender players in girls’ sports,” according to Utah News Dispatch. The move comes as the Supreme Court prepares to hear argument on similar bans in Idaho and West Virginia. The justices’ decision in those cases could reshape policies on transgender athletes nationwide.
• Missouri Supreme Court refuses to review $600 million judgment in Roundup cancer lawsuit (Rudi Keller, Missouri Independent) — The Missouri Supreme Court will not review a decision ordering Bayer, a “German chemical giant,” to “pay a $600 million Missouri court judgment that found its herbicide Roundup causes cancer,” according to the Missouri Independent. Bayer is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court as it weighs ceasing production of the herbicide. “The company has already stopped making Roundup with glyphosate for home use and, in September, announced it was seeking regulatory approval for a new herbicide to replace Roundup for agricultural and commercial use in the U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia and Brazil.”
• The founders would say Trump’s tariffs are legal (Chad Squitieri, The Washington Post) — In an opinion column for The Washington Post, law professor Chad Squitieri pointed “originalist justices on the Supreme Court” toward historical evidence that he believes should lead them to uphold President Donald Trump’s authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. “The lower courts reasoned that tariffs are a tax, and that taxation and regulation are different. That led both courts to conclude that a statute empowering the president to regulate importation does not include the power to tax it. But not all tariffs are taxes — at least not in a constitutional sense. The founders understood that tariffs could also be imposed as an exercise of the power to regulate foreign commerce,” he wrote.
• Should They Just Go Ahead and Put Up a Gold Trump Sign on the Supreme Court? (Emily Bazelon and David French, The New York Times) — In a written conversation for The New York Times, Emily Bazelon and David French discussed what’s at stake in the court’s 2025-26 term and the judiciary’s response to the second Trump administration. They agreed that courts are struggling to respond to President Donald Trump’s policy moves and that Congress should do more to check him. “Most conservative justices have long held the view that the Constitution grants presidents a very high degree of control over the executive branch, but the court has not clearly defined the limits of that control. One thing is already clear, though: If Congress continues to abandon its constitutional role, the courts can’t fully fill that void, even if they consistently rule against the president. They don’t have the jurisdiction, nor the enforcement power,” French said. Bazelon added, “I’m a big believer in other institutions not warping themselves in response to Trump by overreacting. But I feel like the Supreme Court is in danger of cowering in the corner, next to Congress, rather than safeguarding our system of separation of powers among coequal branches.”

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• The court heard argument in six cases this week. Here are the links to SCOTUSblog’s coverage:

— Villarreal v. Texas: Case Preview and Argument Analysis

— Berk v. Choy: Case Preview and Argument Analysis

— Chiles v. Salazar: Case Preview and Argument Analysis

— Barrett v. United States: Case Preview and Argument Analysis

— Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections: Case Preview and Argument Analysis

— U.S. Postal Service v. Konan: Case Preview and Argument Analysis

• The justices will take part in a private conference today, where they will discuss cases and petitions. An order list outlining some of what was decided at that conference is expected on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. EDT.
• The Supreme Court Building is closed on Monday for Columbus Day.
• On Tuesday, the justices will hear argument in Bowe v. United States, on second or successive motions to vacate a sentence, and Ellingburg v. United States, on whether an order for restitution in a criminal case under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause. Look for case previews on SCOTUSblog on these cases and others in the coming days.

A Closer Look: When Businesses Can Refuse Service

Until recently, Office Depot and Build-A-Bear were principally known as (relatively) unassuming retail chains, often reserved for 11th-hour back-to-school runs. But in two separate disputes over service refusals, both stores are now responsible for raising questions of when and why businesses can refuse service to their customers – along with how to balance free speech and anti-discrimination laws.

In mid-September, an Office Depot employee in Michigan refused to print memorial flyers honoring the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk, describing them as “propaganda.” The incident (and accompanying viral video) prompted Office Depot to fire the employee and post a statement on social media condemning the interaction. Attorney General Pam Bondi later said she referred the case for review to the head of the civil rights division. Shortly thereafter, a teenager in Washington claimed that a Build-A-Bear manager declined her request to name a bear “Charlie Kirk” on the stuffed animal’s birth certificate.

Broadly, businesses enjoy significant freedom to refuse service; that is, unless the denial violates federal or state anti-discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits places of public accommodation, like restaurants or stores, from denying service for the protected characteristics of race, color, religion, or national origin. Many states, including Colorado, extend these protections to sex, sexual orientation, and disability.

Common policies, like “no shirt, no shoes, no service” signs or COVID-era mask requirements, are permissible as neutral rules tied to health or safety (not protected characteristics). But refusals tied to political expression, like the Office Depot flyer or Build-A-Bear inscription, fall into a gray area, where businesses can argue that the First Amendment protects them from being forced to engage in compelled speech. Per UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, “[t]here is no federal law that prohibits copy shops or print shops from discriminating based on the content of the message.” And, according to Volokh, “If such a ban were applied to a print shop that deliberately refused to process an order based on its political content, then it might violate the First Amendment.”

The Supreme Court, perhaps unsurprisingly, has waded into the area of compelled speech, particularly in the religious sphere. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 decision held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had engaged in anti-religious bias when penalizing a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The 2023 case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis went further: Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a 6-3 majority, determined that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law violated the First Amendment by compelling a Christian web designer to create same-sex wedding websites.

This term, the court’s ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, challenging Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, could further clarify the boundary between free speech and anti-discrimination prohibitions, especially for businesses offering expressive or counseling-like services. As Amy Howe outlined in her case preview, the case may test whether therapists’ speech rights trump certain state regulations.

SCOTUS Quote

“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”

— Justice Neil Gorsuch in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

On Site

Argument Analyses

Evan Lee on Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections

At Wednesday’s argument in Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, it appeared that perhaps as many as seven justices are leaning toward reversing the lower federal courts’ holding that Rep. Michael Bost, a Republican member of Congress, lacked a legal right to sue, known as standing, to challenge an Illinois law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted even if they arrive as many as 14 days later. Perhaps the bigger mystery is what precise test for “standing” the court will adopt for election-law cases, according to Evan Lee, who analyzed the argument for SCOTUSblog.

Kelsey Dallas on U.S. Postal Service v. Konan

In an argument session featuring competing definitions and colorful hypotheticals, the Supreme Court on Wednesday considered whether the U.S. Postal Service and federal government can be sued over an intentional failure to deliver the mail. While several justices expressed skepticism about the government’s claim that it is shielded from such lawsuits, some appeared concerned about opening the door to a wave of disputes over lost packages or late Christmas cards. For more on the argument in U.S. Postal Service v. Konan, read Kelsey’s analysis.  

Case Preview

Ronald Mann on Ellingburg v. United States

In Ellingburg v United States, to be argued on Tuesday, the justices will consider whether the Constitution’s ex post facto clause applies to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, which entitles victims to restitution for certain offenses. If it does, Holsey Ellingburg will not be obligated to pay any more restitution than the law required at the time he committed his crime (robbing a bank). If it doesn’t, more onerous revisions to the federal restitution statute will apply, increasing his obligations to his victims. Learn more about the dispute by reading Ronald Mann’s case preview.