The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed sympathetic to a Mississippi man who argues that a district attorney violated the Constitution’s ban on racial discrimination in jury selection. Terry Pitchford is on death row for his role in the 2004 robbery and murder of Reuben Britt, who owned a store in Grenada County, Mississippi. At his trial, prosecutor Doug Evans eliminated four potential jurors, all of whom were Black, over the objections of Pitchford’s lawyers.

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

This term, the Supreme Court’s oral argument docket has had a distinctly public-facing quality. Many of the biggest arguments have involved disputes that reach well beyond the parties and into the country’s political life: redistricting in Louisiana v. Callais, presidential tariff authority in Learning Resources v. Trump, presidential removal power and the Federal Reserve in Trump v. Cook, and birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara, which was argued on April 1. Even by the standards of the modern Roberts court, that is a striking concentration of cases touching elections, executive power, and the very architecture of government. That docket has naturally drawn attention to outcomes. But it also offers a useful chance to look at something more granular: the nature of oral argument itself. Which advocates are carrying the heaviest load? Which justices are speaking most often? Which cases become justice-dominated exchanges, and which leave more room for uninterrupted advocacy? And what does that tell us about how the law itself is being shaped?

Updated on April 1 at 7:48 p.m.

As soon as President Donald Trump last evening mentioned attending argument in the birthright citizenship case in Trump v. Barbara today, some Supreme Court reporters were dubious. After all, he had floated the idea of attending the big tariff case in December before deciding against it (or being talked out of it).

Oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, have concluded, but the conversation isn’t over. Listen now to a special live broadcast of the Advisory Opinions podcast about what the justices said and what could happen next.

Advisory Opinions host Sarah Isgur is joined by SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe, David French, Amanda Tyler, and Akhil Amar.

On Wednesday, April 1, we will be live blogging as the court hears argument in Trump v. Barbara, on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

Note: A login is not required to participate in the chat.

Also, to those of you who are in the legal profession, we would be very grateful if you could fill out this brief survey about your work.