The Supreme Court and flag burning: an explainer

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

• James E. Ferguson II, Rights Lawyer Who Defended Busing, Dies at 82 (Sam Roberts, The New York Times)
• Lisa Cook files federal lawsuit to fight Trump firing her from Fed (Bart Jansen, USA Today)
• Supreme Court’s NIH decision has ‘chilling effect on science’ (Shaoni Bhattacharya, Research Professional News)
• The Supreme Court Made a Bad Bet (Lev Menand, The Atlantic)
• The Supreme Court’s Long Shadow: Judicial Behavior on the Shadow Docket Between the 2010 and 2025 Terms (Adam Feldman, Legalytics)

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

• Supreme Court Faces Decision on Another Case Related to Same-Sex Marriage (Nick Mordowanec, Newsweek)
• The Fate of the Fed May Turn on Two Words: ‘For Cause’ (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• Flag burning has a long history in the U.S. — and legal protections from the Supreme Court (Joe Hernandez, NPR)
• Trump’s Unconstitutional Plan to Penalize States that Allow Cashless Bail (Ilya Somin, The Volokh Conspiracy, Reason)
• Will the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Research Grants Sink Harvard’s Lawsuit Against Trump? (Eric Kelderman, The Chronicle of Higher Education)

Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean for the law, for lawyers and lower courts, and for people’s lives.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most important laws adopted in my lifetime. Long overdue, it substantially advanced the promise of the 15th Amendment in lessening racial discrimination in voting by, among other things, requiring federal oversight in jurisdictions that had a history of preventing people from voting based on race. But two matters pending on the Supreme Court’s docket portend potential significant changes in the law of voting rights and of civil rights more generally.

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

• Trump’s effort to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook likely headed for Supreme Court (Devin Dwyer, ABC News)
• Democrats urge Supreme Court to uphold Colorado conversion therapy ban (Brooke Migdon, The Hill)
• Trump’s order on flag burning could return the question to the Supreme Court (Laurie Kellman, AP)
• Is This the Supreme Court’s Next Big Abortion Case? (Damon Root, Reason)
• Texas showdown: Legal battle looming over Ten Commandments in schools (Michelle Boorstein, The Washington Post)

Updated on Aug. 29 at 6:13 p.m.

The Trump administration informed a federal appeals court on Tuesday evening that it has returned to the Supreme Court, seeking to pause an order by a federal district court in Washington, D.C., that requires the federal government to pay billions of dollars in foreign aid that Congress has already allocated. In a 36-page filing attached to a letter submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (and published online by Josh Gerstein of Politico), U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court that unless it steps in, “it will effectively force the government to rapidly obligate some $12 billion in foreign-aid funds that would expire September 30 and to continue obligating tens of billions of dollars more—overriding the Executive Branch’s foreign-policy judgments regarding whether to pursue rescissions and thwarting interbranch dialogue.”

The dispute stems from a Jan. 20 executive order signed by President Donald Trump. That order instructed federal agencies to “immediately pause new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds to foreign countries and implementing non-governmental organizations” so as to give the government time to review the programs to ensure that they were consistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives. Secretary of State Marco Rubio then issued a memorandum freezing foreign-aid programs funded by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.