The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 2 in a case on the federal government’s efforts to prosecute a Texas man for violating a federal statute that prohibits gun possession by users of illegal drugs. That case, United States v. Hemani, is one of seven cases scheduled for the justices’ February argument session, which will begin on Feb. 23 and end on March 4.

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

In the presidential election of 1876, the Democratic candidate (Samuel Tilden) received 50.9% of the popular vote and the Republican candidate (Rutherford Hayes) received 47.9%. In the days following the election, it was agreed that Tilden had won 184 electoral votes (one short of a majority), Hayes had won 165, and 20 votes from four states were disputed. 

In late September, we launched our expanded daily newsletter, SCOTUStoday. Since then, we’ve released 71 editions of it, including 61 “A Closer Looks” – which focus on details of the Supreme Court’s work that may be unfamiliar to even diehard court watchers.  

Eight days ago, the Roberts court handed the Trump administration its first major loss on the interim docket in several months. Throughout this term, the court will also be deciding several important issues relating to presidential power. Whether with these events in mind or not, Chief Justice John Roberts used his latest year-end report – which he releases every year on New Year’s Eve – to reassure the public that federal judges will decide cases impartially, and that the guarantees provided by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution “remain firm and unshaken.”

In his 2024 report, Roberts discussed what he saw as threats to judicial independence. His reports for 2023 and 2022 discussed the legal profession and the role of artificial intelligence and the importance of judicial security, respectively.

Capital Matters is a recurring series by Jordan Steiker that covers federal constitutional regulation of the death penalty and federal habeas review of state criminal convictions and sentences. 

At first blush, it is hard to imagine why a case like Hamm v. Smith, argued earlier this month, has occupied so much attention from the Supreme Court. On close examination, however, the case is about litigating within an important constitutional paradigm that is hanging by a thread.