Skip to content
EMERGENCY DOCKET

Supreme Court clears the way for Trump administration to massively reduce the size of the Department of Education

By Amy Howe on July 14 at 4:30 pm

On Monday, the Supreme Court paused an order by a district court requiring the Department of Education to reinstate nearly 1,400 employees fired by the Trump administration as part of its effort to dismantle the DOE. In a dissent joined by her two fellow Democratic appointees, Justice Sonia Sotomayor contended that the court’s decision would “unleash untold harm.”

The front of the Supreme Court

(Katie Barlow)

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Federal employees urge Supreme Court to keep order in place preventing their firing

By Amy Howe on July 11 at 4:33 pm

On Friday, three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission asked the Supreme Court to leave an order in place allowing them to remain in their jobs. According to the commissioners, the government has inaccurately attempted to paint “a picture of chaos at the agency.”

TERM IN REVIEW

Expertise after Chevron: A potentially pyrrhic victory on executive control over preventive care

By Abbe R. Gluck on July 14 at 10:17 am

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court saved the preventive care provisions of the Affordable Care Act, but in the process gave potentially unlimited authority to the HHS secretary over critical scientific decisions related to vaccines, heart medications, cancer screening, and more. The opinion, full of textual canons and even a touch of Skidmore deference, tees up the next challenge – namely, the extent to which the Administrative Procedure Act constrains the secretary to adhere to evidence-based scientific decision-making.

CASES AND CONTROVERSIES

Whose irreparable harm?

By Carolyn Shapiro on July 10 at 9:35 am

It’s hard to tell why the court rules as it does when it grants stays of injunctions without any meaningful explanation on the emergency docket. But in Trump v. CASA, the court’s discussion of the factors it has long applied suggests a new and expansive ability to reject lower courts’ conclusions and to protect the government.

Newsletter Sign Up

Receive email updates, legal news, and original reporting from SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch.

More news

WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Monday, July 14

By Zachary Shemtob on July 14, 2025

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

WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Friday, July 11

By Zachary Shemtob on July 11, 2025

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

WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, July 10

By Zachary Shemtob on July 10, 2025

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

EMPIRICAL SCOTUS

How the 2024 term fits into the history of the Roberts court

By Adam Feldman on July 9, 2025

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.

As Chief Justice John Roberts closes out his 20th term, the Supreme Court has entered a new phase – less defined by volatility and more by entrenched ideological structure. The 2024-25 term, while quieter than some expected, confirmed that the real story of the Roberts court is the steady narrowing and consolidation of control by a certain faction of the justices.

Over two decades, the court has moved from a shifting center – once held by Justice Anthony Kennedy – to a stable conservative supermajority that increasingly speaks through a few core voices. At the same time, the liberal justices have shifted away from a primary role of coalition-building to become more consistent dissenters, using their opinions less to persuade their colleagues and more to speak to the future.

Continue Reading
EMERGENCY DOCKET

Supreme Court denies Florida’s request to enforce state law on illegal immigration

By Amy Howe on July 9, 2025

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to allow Florida to enforce a state law that makes it a crime for anyone who entered the United States illegally to enter or remain in the state. In a brief unsigned order, the justices left in place an order by a federal district judge in Miami that bars the state from implementing the law. The groups challenging the law had argued that the state had failed to “adequately explain why, especially given Florida’s extensive and ongoing collaboration with federal enforcement efforts, the State must also be allowed to enforce its own state immigration system outside of federal supervision and control while this expedited litigation proceeds.”

Continue Reading