Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog.

In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court held that Colorado’s law prohibiting licensed counselors from seeking to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors was subject to strict First Amendment scrutiny – a victory for opponents of the law. The statute, the court held, discriminated based on viewpoint by allowing the counselors to engage in therapies that affirmed specific sexual orientations and gender identities, but not speech that sought to change them.

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.

Looking across the petitions currently tracked on SCOTUSblog’s designated petitions page, we can see some patterns about what types of cases the court may be interested in hearing in the 2026-27 term.

When the justices meet for their private conference on Friday, April 17, they will consider a petition for review filed by a Catholic preschool in Colorado, challenging its exclusion from that state’s universal preschool program. The preschool contends that the state is discriminating against it based on religion, because Colorado will not provide it with an exemption from rules that would require it to admit everyone – including LGBTQ children and children with LGBTQ parents.

In addition to the briefs filed by the preschool and the state in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, there are 21 “friend of the court,” or amicus, briefs supporting the preschool’s appeal, filed by groups ranging from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to a large coalition of states, led by West Virginia. But one amicus brief, in particular, stands out: a brief filed by the Trump administration, arguing that the decision by a federal appeals court in favor of Colorado was “seriously” wrong and that the Supreme Court should take up the case. Although the federal government frequently files “friend of the court” briefs in the Supreme Court, it has been – at least until recently – unusual for it to do so at its own initiative at this stage of the process. What might be going on here?

Just over one week after lobbing pointed personal criticism at Justice Brett Kavanaugh for his concurring opinion in a decision by the Supreme Court that lifted restrictions on immigration stops that the challenger said are based on racial profiling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called her remarks “inappropriate” and indicated that she had apologized to Kavanaugh.

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

Since our last post, the Supreme Court has done a bit of spring cleaning of the relist rolls. In its last order list, the justices granted review in Johnson v. United States Congress, a veterans-benefits case asking whether the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act stripped district courts of jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to acts of Congress affecting veterans’ benefits. Both petitioner Floyd (“the Barber”) Johnson and the solicitor general supported review, so not much of a surprise there.