Supreme Court takes up cases on transgender athletes

Yesterday, July 2, Amy and I were on the podcast Advisory Opinions. Please check out the episode here.

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

• Trump turns to Supreme Court in fight to oust Biden-era consumer safety officials (Alec Schemmel, Fox News)
• The supreme court is cracking down on judges – and letting Trump run wild (Steven Greenhouse, The Guardian)
• Nationwide injunctions should have been nullified long ago (George Liebmann, The Baltimore Sun)
• Amy Coney Barrett Is the Most Interesting Justice on the Court (David Lat, Original Jurisdiction)
• Why Trump Evaded the Key Question of His Citizenship Order at the Supreme Court (Paul Finkelman and Gabriel J. Chin, Slate)

This is part of SCOTUSblog’s term in review series, in which scholars analyze some of the most significant cases of the 2024-25 Supreme Court term.

The best that can be said for Trump v. CASA is that it could have been far worse. Its methodology and conclusions are myopic and wrong, and it is especially unwelcome during a period in which each passing day seems to bring new incursions by the executive branch upon individual rights, the separation of powers, federalism, and the rule of law. The court held that federal courts may not give universal injunctions, which are orders that block the application of a law or an executive branch action to anyone who might be harmed by it, not just its application to the plaintiffs. But despite the court’s seemingly categorical rejection of the universal injunction, the ironic possibility exists that the decision will turn out to be, as Justice Samuel Alito put it, essentially “academic.”  

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

• Trump Is Now More Powerful Thanks to the Supreme Court. But Will It Last? (Damon Root, Reason)
• How the Supreme Court has opened the way for citizenship chaos (Karen Tumulty, The Washington Post)
• The Supreme Court just ended its term. Here are the decisions that will affect climate policy. (Joseph Winters, Grist)
• Supreme Court’s Medina ruling frees states to defund Planned Parenthood (Kristen Waggoner, The Hill)
• ‘Heightened Scrutiny,’ Featuring Attorney Who Argued Crucial Trans Rights Supreme Court Case, To Get Theatrical Release From Fourth Act Film (Matthew Carey, Deadline)

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.

As someone who grew up (and continues to be) obsessed with baseball statistics, I think that a great deal can be learned from looking at the numbers concerning the Supreme Court (and SCOTUSblog does as well, as reflected in its 2024-25 Stat Pack). And now that the court has completed issuing decisions other than emergency matters, it is possible to study the statistics for October Term 2024.

If you haven’t already, please check out our SCOTUSblog Stat Pack for the 2024-25 term, which can be found here.

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

• SCOTUS orders judges to revisit decisions on transgender health plans, birth certificates in wake of blockbuster ruling (John Fritz and Devan Cole, CNN)
• Supreme Court to Take on Major Labels’ Billion-Dollar Copyright Case Against Cox (Andrew Flanagan, Variety)
• What the Supreme Court Injunction Ruling Means for Trump’s Agenda (Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg)
• Justice Kagan Won 70% of the Time (The Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal)
• Liberals Are Going to Keep Losing at the Supreme Court (Duncan Hosie, The Atlantic)