The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

Since our last post, the Supreme Court has done a bit of spring cleaning of the relist rolls. In its last order list, the justices granted review in Johnson v. United States Congress, a veterans-benefits case asking whether the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act stripped district courts of jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to acts of Congress affecting veterans’ benefits. Both petitioner Floyd (“the Barber”) Johnson and the solicitor general supported review, so not much of a surprise there.

Next week’s argument in Sripetch v SEC presents yet another chapter in the court’s sustained examination of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s use of certain remedies in its enforcement of the securities laws. The specific question here is whether the SEC can use “disgorgement” to force a wrongdoer to turn over its profits to the government without showing directly that the wrongdoer’s activities harmed its customers.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in “suits at common law” – that is, lawsuits seeking legal remedies, such as money, rather than a remedy (known as equitable relief) that orders a defendant to do something or to stop doing something – in which $20 or more is at stake. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in SEC v. Jarkesy that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s imposition of fines in its administrative proceedings as a penalty for securities fraud violated that guarantee. On Tuesday, April 21, the justices will consider whether that same reasoning applies to fines that the Federal Communications Commission imposes for violations of federal communications laws.

Please note that the following does not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog.

The Supreme Court is losing legitimacy – the only superpower it has. It’s under attack from partisan critics and presidents who don’t want their power challenged.

Yet the court isn’t perfect. Does the institution need to change to catch up to the modern era of our politics, or are its anachronistic rituals the only thing keeping it from becoming another failed branch? How do we preserve the last branch standing?

After walking through the current court and the history of how we got here, these are a few of the ideas I propose at the end of my book, Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court.

The Second Amendment states that “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As both critics and supporters of the amendment recognize, little of that language is particularly straightforward. What is a “well regulated Militia,” and how does that apply to today’s arguments over gun control? What constitutes “Arms,” and when is keeping and bearing them “infringed”?

Amid that morass, one phrase that would seem (at least on the surface) a good deal more intuitive is “the people.” After all, doesn’t the people consist of, well, everyone? The answer is … not exactly. So who exactly are “the people” that may possess firearms in the first place? And how might this play into the court’s future decisions on the Second Amendment?