Supreme Court allows Trump administration to implement plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• In Digital Era, Supreme Court Insists on Vast Piles of Paper (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• Appeals court rules against North Dakota tribes in voting rights case that could go to Supreme Court (Jack Dura and Steve Karnowski, AP News)
• A New Supreme Court Case Could Give the Wealthy Even More Political Power (Mike Ludwig, Truthout)
• The Past Four Years at the Supreme Court Did Not Need to Be This Way (Jay Willis, Slate)
• Now that Supreme Court is out for the summer, will Congress finally do its job? (Dace Potas, USA Today)

Also, beginning at 5 pm tonight, we hope to be live streaming the 2025 Supreme Court Review, presented by The National Constitution Center and the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law.

This is part of SCOTUSblog’s term in review series, in which scholars analyze some of the most significant cases of the 2024-25 Supreme Court term.

In Kousisis v. United States, decided on May 22, the Supreme Court considered the breadth of federal wire and mail fraud offenses and unanimously rejected a requirement that a fraud victim suffer a net economic loss. Instead, the court focused on whether the fraudster’s misrepresentations were material – that is, whether they would have affected the victim’s decision to engage in the fraudulent transaction in the first place.

Brothers in Law is a recurring series by Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar. For more content from Akhil and Vikram, please see Akhil’s free weekly podcast, “Amarica’s Constitution,” and Vikram’s regular columns on Justia.

Every justice takes an oath to support the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the land. Most members of the current court boast that they are faithful originalists – that is, jurists who generally prioritize the Constitution’s text, history, and structure, as distinct from mere precedent or politics or practicality. Yet over the centuries, the justices have often failed to root their ruminations in the rich soil of the Constitution itself, even as they have claimed to be doing constitutional law. Last term was no exception.

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read:

• Eight migrants deported from Djibouti to South Sudan, Homeland Security says (Reuters)
• Trump wasn’t the only Supreme Court winner this year. Here’s the scorecard. (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)
• Why Roberts and Gorsuch may decide the Supreme Court’s blockbuster transgender sports case (John Fritze and Devan Cole, CNN)
• One of the Supreme Court’s sharpest critics sits on it (Justin Jouvenal, The Washington Post)
• Justices Alito and Thomas: Bring Us a Case on Parental Consent Regarding Child’s Abortion (Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review)

Happy 4th of July! I hope you have a wonderful Independence Day.

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

• Judges are finding workarounds to Trump’s big Supreme Court win (Kyle Cheney and Hassan Ali Kanu, Politico)
• Supreme Court rejects Montana’s bid to revive parental consent law for minors’ abortions (Lindsay Whitehurst, AP)
• Federal prison guards allegedly beat an inmate to a pulp. The Supreme Court says he can’t sue. (Billy Binion, Reason)
• Ghost guns may make a comeback, despite a Supreme Court ruling (Martin Kaste, NPR)
• Is the Supreme Court the Best Way to Get Justice? (Alexis Coe, The New York Times)