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.

The Supreme Court continues to churn through its relist rolls. True to our prediction that the case was a “likely grant,” the court granted review in one-time relist Noem v. Al Otro Lado, which presents the question whether a noncitizen who is stopped on the Mexican side of the border has nevertheless “arrive[d] in the United States” and thereby become eligible to apply for asylum. 

Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean for the law, for lawyers and lower courts, and for people’s lives.

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

Although many criticisms have been made of the Supreme Court’s rulings on its emergency docket, one that has not received enough attention is the court’s failure to follow well-established principles for staying a preliminary injunction, which – while it may sound technical – has enormous importance. This has been evident in many shadow docket decisions, but was particularly evident in the court’s Nov. 6 ruling in Trump v. Orr. In Orr, the court, by an apparent vote of 6-3, stayed a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from implementing a rule requiring that passports indicate a person’s sex at birth.

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.

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

In its defense of President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting access to birthright citizenship, the Justice Department claims that the government’s policy would bring the United States in line with the modern global trend. It is true that most countries do not grant citizenship at birth to people born within their borders with as few restrictions as the United States. But that isn’t new: The United States has been a global outlier since the 14th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1868. 

Understanding which countries grant citizenship primarily based on the location of birth, and which don’t, helps make sense of the 127-year-old approach that the Justice Department is asking the court to reconsider. This also reveals the troubling history of why certain countries have chosen not to recognize birthright citizenship in the first place. 

Last month, the Supreme Court turned down an appeal from a group of Colorado parents who argued that a school district interfered with their parental rights when it left them out of discussions about their children’s gender identity. Three justices wrote that although they agreed with the decision not to take up the parents’ appeal, the question at the center of the case was one of “great and growing national importance.” On Friday, the justices will consider a new request to weigh in on parental rights in public schools, this time brought by a Massachusetts couple who contend that school officials not only socially transitioned their middle-school-aged child over their objections but also hid that fact from them. 

Justice, Democracy, and Law is a recurring series by Edward B. Foley that focuses on election law and the relationship of law and democracy.

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

Electoral competition in the United States will become increasingly intense next year as the congressional midterms approach and the nation moves towards the 2028 presidential election. The reason for this heightened intensity should be obvious: in addition to the generally accelerating partisan polarization that afflicts U.S. politics, there is the acute strain caused by President Donald Trump’s record of accusing elections of being rigged or stolen when he doesn’t like the outcome or anticipates a potential defeat.