Oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, on the president’s authority to fire the heads of independent, multi-member federal agencies, have concluded, but the conversation isn’t over. Listen now to a special live broadcast of the Advisory Opinions podcast to reflect on what the justices said and what could happen next.

Advisory Opinions host Sarah Isgur is joined by SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe, David French, and Adam White.

We were live as the court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter.

Continue Reading

The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon added four new cases to its argument docket for the 2025-26 term. In a brief list of orders from the justices’ private conference earlier in the day, the court agreed to weigh in on one of the challenges to President Donald Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship (covered in a separate story).

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments early next year in the challenge to President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States. Under the order, which has never gone into effect, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to citizenship if their parents are in this country either illegally or temporarily. The challengers argue that the order conflicts with both the text of the Constitution and the court’s longstanding case law.

The announcement came in a brief list of orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday morning. The court will release another list of orders, including the cases from Friday’s conference in which it has denied review, on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EST.

Updated on Dec. 5 at 2:40 p.m.

For the 32nd time since late January, the Trump administration on Friday came to the Supreme Court seeking emergency relief. In a 26-page filing, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to block a ruling by a federal appeals court that sent a dispute over a policy governing speaking engagements by immigration judges back to a federal trial court for fact-finding. Federal law, Sauer argued, makes clear that the trial court lacks the power to consider the group’s claim, because judges are required to challenge the policy through an administrative process.

The dispute began when the National Association of Immigration Judges went to federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, to challenge the policy, which requires immigration judges to obtain permission before making any “official” speeches – such as immigration conferences and pro bono training. Immigration judges are not required to obtain clearance for speeches that they make in their personal capacity, such as speaking before community groups on topics that are not directly related to immigration. The group contended that the policy violates the First Amendment by (among other things) prohibiting “judges from sharing their private views on immigration law or policy issues, or about the agency that employs them.”