Yesterday’s argument in Jules v Andre Balazs Properties showed a bench with some uncertainty about the jurisdiction of federal courts to enforce an arbitration award.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to weigh in on a procedural question arising from a pregnancy discrimination case – specifically, whether a defendant can raise an affirmative defense (that is, a legal excuse or justification) later in the proceedings when it did not raise that defense in the answer to the plaintiff’s complaint.

Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office was the lone case in which the court granted review on Monday. The announcement came on a list of orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, March 27.

The government’s top Supreme Court lawyer will likely face vigorous questioning from the justices on Wednesday in Trump v. Barbara, the birthright-citizenship case.

What follows are 20 sets of questions that we ourselves would love to ask Solicitor General D. John Sauer in some great moot court in the sky. (Here on planet Earth, Sauer has of course not invited us to moot him, though he did expressly respond to Akhil’s amicus brief at page 13 of his reply brief.) In a sequel column, we’ll list some of the hardest questions that might be posed to the appellate advocate on our side of the case, the ACLU’s Cecilia Wang, along with the best answers we think she can give.

In Dissent is a recurring series by Anastasia Boden on Supreme Court dissents that have shaped (or reshaped) our country.

By the time George Jarkesy reached a real court, nearly a decade had passed since he had first been pulled into an administrative tribunal – and that quasi-court had already found him guilty.

SCOTUSblog is excited to share the second in a series of animated videos, done in partnership with Briefly, on some of the most important upcoming cases of the 2025-26 term. Today’s video is an introduction to Trump v. Barbara, to be argued on Wednesday, April 1, which is a challenge to President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. Although the video speaks for itself, it provides a one-of-a-kind introduction to this case and the profound questions that it raises. 

***

Briefly is a tech-enabled legal content company whose mission is to make legal information more engaging and accessible.

Briefly merges deep legal knowledge with design and animation to produce rigorous, visually sophisticated content for law firms, companies, and courts. Its work includes bespoke legal content projects and a growing subscription platform that helps organizations scale legal knowledge across teams.