Rights and Responsibilities is a recurring series by Richard Garnett on legal education, the role of the courts in our constitutional structure, and the law of religious freedom and free expression.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Our Constitution speaks, in two different places, about “religion.” It provides, in Article VI, that “religious” tests for federal public office are prohibited. (It is a not-so-fun fact that such tests existed and persisted for a while in several states.) And, of course, the First Amendment forbids Congress from making a “law respecting an establishment of religion” or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Indeed, President Bill Clinton, more than 30 years ago, called the freedom of “religion” our “first freedom.” But what, exactly, are we talking about?

The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to pause a ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that keeps Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, in office despite President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire her in the wake of allegations that she committed mortgage fraud before joining the board. (Cook has denied the allegations, and several news outlets have since reported on financial documents that may undermine the government’s contentions.) U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the government’s top lawyer before the court, told the justices that the ruling by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb was “yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority—here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause.”

The Trump administration’s request came just one day after the Federal Reserve’s two-day September policy meeting, at which the Fed lowered interest rates by a quarter of a point, the first cut since December 2024. Trump has criticized the chair of the Fed, Jerome Powell, for not lowering interest rates. Cook participated in the meeting and joined 10 other governors in voting for the rate cut; Stephen Miran, who was recently appointed to the board by Trump, would have imposed a larger cut.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Nov. 5 in the pair of challenges to President Donald Trump’s authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The court on Thursday morning released an updated calendar for its November argument session that reflects the addition of the tariffs dispute, which the justices added to their docket for the 2025-26 term on Sept. 9.

Lawyers representing a group of Louisiana voters challenging the creation of a second majority-Black congressional district in the state told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act is “inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.”

Nuts and Bolts is a recurring series by Stephen Wermiel providing insights into the mechanics of how the Supreme Court works.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Discussion of the Supreme Court today often turns into debate about the importance of judicial independence versus the authority and power of Congress. Sometimes lost in the debate are the numerous ways in which Congress already regulates the court.