Every post published in March 2026, most recent first.
In our last column, we imagined grilling Solicitor General D. John Sauer in a moot court on birthright citizenship. Today, we reverse angles and imagine some of the hardest questions that tough-minded justices could ask the challengers’ lawyer, our friend and ACLU counsel Cecillia Wang, at Wednesday’s Supreme Court oral argument.
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. It was a relatively quiet week at the relist window – just one grant, one denial, one apparent hold, and one new relist.
Updated on March 31 at 3:08 p.m. The Supreme Court on Tuesday sent a challenge to Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” – treatment intended to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity – for young people back to the lower courts for them to apply a new standard.
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.
ScotusCrim is a recurring series by Rory Little focusing on intersections between the Supreme Court and criminal law. Last week and the coming week are important for criminal law fans at the court. Two full-argument decisions were issued, both in favor of the defendant’s position.
Immigration Matters is a recurring series by César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández that analyzes the court’s immigration docket, highlighting emerging legal questions about new policy and enforcement practices.
Good morning, and welcome to what’s expected to be the fourth opinion day of the month. We will be live blogging beginning at 9:30 a.m. EDT. Also, to those of you who are in the legal profession, could you please fill out this brief survey about your work?
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.
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.
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.