Skip to content
EMERGENCY DOCKET

Trump administration urges Supreme Court to pause order requiring payment of grants linked to DEI initiatives

By Amy Howe on July 24 at 7:10 pm

The Trump administration has asked the court to stay a district court order requiring the National Institutes of Health to pay grants linked by the Trump administration with DEI initiatives. According to the government, the justices need to act so as to prevent district judges from elevating “their own policy judgments over those of the Executive Branch.”

Supreme Court steps

(Katie Barlow)

RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Is religious freedom possible in state schools?

By Richard Garnett on July 25 at 10:12 am

The Supreme Court recently affirmed that parents have constitutional rights to make at least some decisions about what their children are taught in public schools. The case is about more than curriculum, though, and raises foundational questions about what religious freedom means and what schooling is for.

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Supreme Court pauses ruling that potentially weakens the Voting Rights Act

By Amy Howe on July 24 at 4:00 pm

On Thursday, the Supreme Court temporarily prevented a decision by a federal appeals court that could limit the Voting Rights Act from taking effect. The decision was made in a brief unsigned order.

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Supreme Court sides with Trump administration in battle over ability to remove agency commissioners

By Amy Howe on July 23 at 6:02 pm

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to fire three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court was using “its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency.”

Newsletter Sign Up

Receive email updates, legal news, and original reporting from SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch.

More news

WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Friday, July 25

By Zachary Shemtob on July 25, 2025

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

ScotusCrim

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s “right to jury trial” revolution

By Rory Little on July 24, 2025

ScotusCrim is a recurring series by Rory Little focusing on intersections between the Supreme Court and criminal law.

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

Welcome to the second installment of ScotusCrim, a recurring column focused on criminal-law-and-related cases at the Supreme Court. Today I focus on juries and sentencing in criminal cases; and at the end I introduce a feature called “Out of My Lane” in which I hope to offer brief thoughts on non-criminal aspects of Supreme Court practice.

Continue Reading
SCOTUS FOCUS

A brief history of Supreme Court rulings on hair

By Kelsey Dallas on July 24, 2025

One of the cases the Supreme Court will hear during the 2025-26 term started with a haircut.

Damon Landor’s head was forcibly shaved in 2020 after he arrived at Raymond Laborde Correctional Center, part of the Louisiana prison system. Landor had shared legal documents showing that Rastafarian prisoners growing their hair for religious reasons had to be allowed to keep their dreadlocks, but a guard threw the papers in the trash and called the warden, who ordered the guards to proceed with the cut.

Continue Reading
WHAT WE’RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, July 24

By Zachary Shemtob on July 24, 2025

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Group challenges restrictions on children’s access to social media

By Amy Howe on July 23, 2025

A tech industry group came to the Supreme Court this week, asking the justices to temporarily block Mississippi from enforcing restrictions on minors’ access to social media against several major social media sites, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, X, Reddit, and YouTube. The group, NetChoice, told the justices that if the state is allowed to enforce the restrictions, some users of social-media websites will face an “immediate loss of First Amendment rights,” while the websites will suffer “enormous, ‘nonrecoverable’ compliance costs” – which for “at least one member” could exceed its overall budget.

Mississippi passed the law, known as House Bill 1126, in 2024. The law imposes parental-consent requirements for young people to create social-media accounts, requires social-media sites to verify users’ ages before allowing them to create accounts, and requires sites to “make commercially reasonable efforts to develop and implement a strategy” to shield young people from being exposed to harmful material and content that promotes (for example) self-harm, bullying, and substance abuse.

Continue Reading