The Supreme Court is done hearing argument for October, but that does not mean it’s done making major rulings. There are several applications awaiting action on the court’s interim docket, including the Trump administration’s request to be allowed to federalize and deploy the National Guard within Illinois and its attempt to change the current rules for sex markers on passports.  

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff, especially when it comes to the NBA.

For court fans, October is the sweetest month. That’s true whether you like lacing up wingtips for a pretrial conference or high tops for a pickup basketball game. At the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, the 2025-26 term already has begun. Meanwhile, two high-octane games just opened the National Basketball Association regular season on Tuesday, Oct. 21, including one with the defending champion Oklahoma City Thunder (they beat the Houston Rockets in double overtime).

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.

When is it ever appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide that a federal law is unconstitutional because it is no longer needed?

This question arose during the oral arguments on Oct. 15 in Louisiana v. Callais, involving the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election standards and practices that have a discriminatory effect against minority voters. And it was at the heart of the court’s decision over a decade ago in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down another crucial part of the Voting Rights Act that required jurisdictions with a history of race discrimination in voting to obtain federal preapproval before making significant changes to their election systems. But it is not obvious why it is the court’s job to decide when a problem is over, and it is even less clear how the court should go about making such an inquiry.

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.

President  Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship is back before the Supreme Court. Unlike the last time that challenges to the policy reached the justices – when they focused on a procedural issue – the Justice Department is now asking the court to side squarely with the president’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. To support the president’s view that the Constitution’s citizenship clause always required consideration of a parent’s citizenship or immigration status, the Justice Department points to a variety of 19th-century sources, most prominently work by Justice Joseph Story, who is among the court’s most revered members. But a close reading of the writings by Story that the government cites reveals that its present-day argument misses key nuance from the past.

Lawyers for small businesses and states challenging President Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs on almost all goods imported into the United States urged the Supreme Court on Monday to leave in place rulings by lower courts that struck down most of the tariffs. One group of small businesses told the justices that the tariffs “have equated to the largest peacetime tax increase in American history,” while another contends that the tariffs “upend[] a century of trade law.”