For decades, the U.S. solicitor general’s most familiar role at the certiorari stage has been reactive rather than proactive: When the Supreme Court wants the federal government’s views on a certiorari petition in a case in which the United States is not a party, it usually has to ask for them – through a call for the views of the solicitor general, or CVSG. That process began in 1957 and became institutionalized in the 1960s. CVSGs are unusual but not rare, happening around 10 or 11 times every term, and they serve as powerful signals that a petition has attracted the court’s serious attention.

ScotusCrim is a recurring series by Rory Little focusing on intersections between the Supreme Court and criminal law.

Imagine: A group of drug dealers beat and shoot dead a citizen they felt was interfering with their work. There are witnesses as well as video evidence establishing these facts and enabling identifications. The gang is in constant electronic communication with their bosses who are miles away in a plush office. With the bosses’ knowledge and approval, the drug dealers do a hurried clean-up of the scene and spirit away the shooters and physical evidence before law enforcement can investigate.

Now that the Supreme Court appears to have filled out its oral argument docket for the 2025-26 term (unless it opts to fast-track a case), it seems an apt time to survey the Second Amendment landscape and highlight some of the biggest issues that the justices have not yet tackled.

Updated on Feb. 10 at 11:40 a.m.

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.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning the court’s recognition of a constitutional right to an abortion. To justify their opinions in Dobbs, the justices cited six different briefs submitted by scholars. This intense marshaling of academic expertise exemplifies a broader transformation in Supreme Court practice: Justices increasingly turn to such briefs not merely for doctrinal support but for historical practices, empirical claims, and constitutional analysis.

Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. At issue was whether Idaho and West Virginia laws that prohibit transgender women and girls from competing on schools’ female sports teams violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause and Title IX, a federal civil rights law that bars sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding. The cases generated a great deal of attention, and by arguments’ end there was a consensus that the court was “skeptical of challenges to bans on trans athletes.”