On Tuesday, the Supreme Court considered whether it’s possible to run out of time to challenge a judgment that never should have been issued. 

The justices did not have a lot to say on Tuesday morning when they heard from the lawyers in The Hain Celestial Group v Palmquist, as the entire argument occupied less than 45 minutes. The consistent tone of the justices’ comments suggests that the justices will affirm the decision of the lower court.

Continue Reading

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 is meeting in conference this Friday for the first time in three weeks. A lot of cases have built up during that time – 263 to be precise, almost twice as many cases as were at the last October conference. Only one of those cases has been relisted for the first time, though: Watson v. Republican National Committee, which asks the justices to decide what “election day” (or “the day for the election”) means.

Monday’s argument in Hencely v Fluor Corporation revealed a bench broadly skeptical of the idea that military contractors have absolute immunity for negligent mistakes they make when those mistakes occur in an active war zone. 

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Wednesday in the challenges to the tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in a series of executive orders earlier this year, they will hear from three different lawyers representing small businesses, a group of 12 states, and – defending the tariffs – the Trump administration. But when they vote on the case, the justices will also have considered 44 “friend of the court” briefs, filed on behalf of members of Congress, trade experts, legal scholars, think tanks founded by former Vice President Mike Pence and presidential adviser Stephen Miller, the watch industry, and a vineyard owner. The briefs cover a wide range of topics, ranging from the impact of the tariffs to the history of trade law. And the proponents of the tariffs are overwhelmingly outnumbered by their opponents. 

Below, I highlight several arguments from a selection of these briefs.