SCOTUStoday for Monday, February 16

As the U.S. Supreme Court has been observing its winter recess, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has been addressing some dairy drama. On Wednesday, it ruled that Oatly cannot market its plant-based products with a slogan that includes the word “milk.”

Reminder: In recognition of Presidents Day, this is an abridged edition of SCOTUStoday.

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• On Friday, the Supreme Court indicated that it may announce opinions this Friday, Feb. 20, at 10 a.m. EST. SCOTUSblog will host an opinion day live blog that morning beginning at 9:30.
• The court also indicated that it may announce opinions on Tuesday, Feb. 24, and Wednesday, Feb. 25. We will host live blogs those days, as well.
• Also on Friday, a Republican member of Congress, a group of voters, and New York election officials asked the Supreme Court to allow New York to proceed with the 2026 elections using its existing congressional map. For more on the dispute, see the On Site section below.
• The court could rule at any time on an interim docket case on California’s policies for parental notification if a student chooses to use different names or pronouns.
• The court will next hear arguments on Monday, Feb. 23, the first day of its February sitting.

Morning Reads

• New judicial ethics code says judges may speak out against ‘illegitimate’ attacks (Tierney Sneed, CNN) — A new ethics code from the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct “makes clear that judges can speak out against ‘illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks,’” but encourages judges to “exercise caution” and try to ensure that their comments “promote public confidence in the courts,” according to CNN. The guidance “cites the 2024 year-end report by Chief Justice John Roberts that emphasized judicial independence and said that violence, intimidation, disinformation and threats to defy court orders all qualify as ‘illegitimate’ forms of judicial attack.” In a statement, Fix the Court’s Gabe Roth described the new ethics opinion as “a strong rebuke of the Trump administration’s ‘war’ on the judiciary,” while noting that it doesn’t call out officials by name.
• DOJ sues for Harvard admissions documents (Lexi Lonas Cochran, The Hill) — On Friday, the Justice Department sued Harvard, “accusing it of withholding data the Trump administration wants to determine if the school is complying with the Supreme Court decision to ban affirmative action in higher education admissions,” according to The Hill. “The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, says Harvard has dodged giving the documents for more than 10 months.” In a statement to The Hill, a Harvard spokesperson defended the school’s actions and said “[t]he University will continue to defend itself against these retaliatory actions which have been initiated simply because Harvard refused to surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights in response to unlawful government overreach.”
• Trump Erased a Bedrock Climate Rule. Here Come the Lawsuits. (Karen Zraick, The New York Times)(Paywall) — Last week, the Trump administration repealed the “endangerment finding, which found that” climate change threatens public health and which the government has used since 2008 to justify regulations on greenhouse gases. With the repeal, the administration “set up a legal battle that’s all but certain to hinge on the Supreme Court,” which it believes it can win, at least in part because of “several recent rulings limiting the power of federal agencies,” according to The New York Times. Environmental organizations and others who want to challenge the repeal are grappling with the fact that a loss before the Supreme Court “could hamstring future leaders seeking to reinstate climate regulations.”
• Trump nominates White House lawyer to trade court that could decide details of any tariff refunds (Ari Hawkins, Politico) — On Thursday, President Donald Trump announced that he is nominating White House associate counsel Kara Westercamp “to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal court that could prove pivotal in deciding tariff refunds if the Supreme Court strikes down some of the president’s duties,” according to Politico. “Judges at the court have previously said it has the authority to order [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] to redo duty calculations and issue refunds if the tariffs are ultimately found unlawful.” Westercamp previously worked in the Justice Department as a trade attorney.
• These Fortune Global 500 companies have sued the Trump administration for tariff refunds (Katherine Li, Business Insider) — As they await the Supreme Court’s decision on tariffs, some top global companies, including Costco and Toyota, are filing lawsuits of their own in hopes of ensuring that refunds remain available to them, according to Business Insider. For example, Toyota is seeking to block Customs and Border Protection from liquidating, or finalizing, its tariff payments. “Once liquidation occurs, the chances of getting any money back become slim — and for many companies, their time is running out.”

On Site

From the SCOTUSblog Team

Republicans urge Supreme Court to restore New York congressional map

Following an order by a state court barring New York from using its existing congressional map in the 2026 elections, a Republican member of Congress, group of voters, and New York election officials came to the Supreme Court on Friday and asked the justices to allow the state to proceed with the elections as planned. The court has directed the voters challenging the current map to respond to the new filings by Thursday at 4 p.m. EST.

A guide to some of the briefs in support of ending birthright citizenship

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. Amy analyzed the arguments made in some of the many amicus briefs filed in support of the Trump administration. (She will analyze the briefs for the challengers when they arrive later this month.)

Contributor Corner

Justice Scalia ten years later

In his latest AV Ristorante column, Brian Fitzpatrick reflected on the legal legacy of Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he clerked for. At the time of Scalia’s death in 2016, Fitzpatrick wrote, “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.”