Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog.

In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court held that Colorado’s law prohibiting licensed counselors from seeking to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors was subject to strict First Amendment scrutiny – a victory for opponents of the law. The statute, the court held, was protected speech, and discriminated based on viewpoint by allowing the counselors to engage in therapies that affirmed specific sexual orientations and gender identities, but not speech that sought to change them.

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.

Looking across the petitions currently tracked on SCOTUSblog’s designated petitions page, we can see some patterns about what types of cases the court may be interested in hearing in the 2026-27 term.

Just over one week after lobbing pointed personal criticism at Justice Brett Kavanaugh for his concurring opinion in a decision by the Supreme Court that lifted restrictions on immigration stops that the challenger said are based on racial profiling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called her remarks “inappropriate” and indicated that she had apologized to Kavanaugh.

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.