The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Monday in Abouammo v. United States, in which it will consider whether federal prosecutors can try a defendant not only in the district where the offense actually occurred, but also in the district where the crime’s “contemplated effects” are felt.

Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar have responded to my recent post arguing that the 14th Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to the children of temporary visitors to the United States. As a practicing attorney, I am accustomed to having the opportunity to file a reply brief, and I thank the editors of SCOTUSblog for allowing me to briefly respond to the Amars’ arguments.

Controlling Opinions is a recurring series by Richard Re that explores the interaction of law, ideology, and discretion at the Supreme Court.

On the surface, Justice Antonin Scalia’s legacy has never been more distinguished. He is regularly invoked by all sitting justices, as well as by advocates before the Supreme Court. Legal culture remains transformed by the legal movement he helped spearhead, as evidenced by the prevalence of textualism and originalism. And his most celebrated dissent, from Morrison v. Olson, is on the verge of being vindicated in Trump v. Slaughter, which may give the president the power to fire the heads of certain independent agencies. Many of Scalia’s followers and admirers justifiably celebrate his memory and influence.

The Supreme Court announced last week that it will hear argument in late April on the Trump administration’s effort to remove protected immigration status from Syrian and Haitian nationals. Its eventual ruling is expected to bring clarity not just to these two cases, but also to several other lawsuits filed in response to the administration’s changes to the Temporary Protected Status program, which enables certain non-citizens to temporarily live and work legally in the United States.

As in the birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court’s decision could hold significant consequences for immigration policy. Here’s a brief overview of the Temporary Protected Status program, what’s at stake in the related disputes, and what the court has said in the past year about the administration’s authority to revoke protected immigration status.

In a list of orders released on Monday morning, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling by a federal appeals court, holding that a Vermont police officer is entitled to qualified immunity from a lawsuit brought by a nonviolent protester who was injured during a sit-in at the state’s capitol. The justices also denied review in the case of a Texas man on death row seeking DNA testing that he says could prove his innocence. The court’s three Democratic appointees dissented in both cases. One of those justices, Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented from the denial of review in the case of a Texas journalist who was arrested, Sotomayor wrote, “for doing something journalists do every day: posing questions to a public official.”

 The justices did not act on several high-profile petitions for review that they have repeatedly considered at their private conferences, including petitions challenging state bans on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, a Fourth Amendment case involving a police officer’s justification to stop a car, and the FBI’s efforts to invoke the state-secrets privilege.