While I have written multiple posts for SCOTUSblog on birthright citizenship, a substantial part of my practice is litigating Second Amendment claims. In light of that experience, I was struck when listening to the Trump v. Barbara argument that the challengers’ counsel Cecillia Wang repeatedly insisted that the exceptions to birthright citizenship (such as for the children of ambassadors, tribal Indians, and invading armies) are “a closed set” – i.e., that the exceptions were set in 1868 with the adoption of the 14th Amendment and will always remain the same regardless of changed circumstances. This is a misunderstanding of originalism. As the court has explained in the Second Amendment context, the Constitution does not create “a law trapped in amber.” Rather, courts apply the original meaning of the Second Amendment to today’s circumstances, which can result in outcomes that are different from those at the Founding. A similar approach to the citizenship clause should be adopted in Trump v. Barbara.

The Supreme Court on Monday morning added one new case, involving challenges to veterans’ benefit laws, to its docket for the 2026-27 term. The justices also sent the case of Stephen Bannon, a former adviser to President Donald Trump who was convicted of contempt of Congress, back to the lower court, where the Department of Justice has filed a motion to dismiss his indictment. And the court rebuffed, without comment, a challenge to an Illinois law banning guns on public transportation.

All of these actions came as part of a list of orders released from the justices’ private conference on April 2. The justices’ next conference is scheduled for Friday, April 17; orders from that conference are expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT on Monday, April 20.

Justice, Democracy, and Law is a recurring series by Edward B. Foley that focuses on election law and the relationship of law and democracy.

“Original public meaning” has become the prevailing method of constitutional interpretation at the Supreme Court. The idea, which is at the heart of originalism, will be familiar to many SCOTUSblog readers. It is that the text of the Constitution must be understood and enforced by the court today in the same way that the text was understood by members of the public at the time the text became law.

By now, readers of SCOTUSblog are quite familiar with the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, where parties come to the court seeking emergency orders, oftentimes without full briefing and oral argument. Much of the discourse surrounding this docket centers on its opacity. In 2015, Will Baude pointed out that, unlike with typical cases, we simply do not know how the justices vote on emergency applications. Occasionally, a public dissent or a noted disagreement statement gives us a partial glimpse at the underlying tally. But these are exceptions. Instead, the court usually issues a one-line order and the public is left to guess which justice voted which way.

Justice Samuel Alito was hospitalized on March 20 “[o]ut of an abundance of caution” and at the recommendation of his security detail, the Supreme Court’s Public Information Officer, Patricia McCabe, said in a statement released to reporters on Friday afternoon. The statement came in response to inquiries prompted by a story by CNN’s Joan Biskupic, who reported on Friday that Alito “was taken to a hospital after becoming ill last month at a Federalist Society dinner in Philadelphia.” McCabe’s statement did not indicate whether doctors had provided Alito with a diagnosis or, if they had, what that diagnosis was.