The Gavel is The Hill’s weekly courts newsletter. Sign up here or in the box below:
Welcome to Supreme Court decision season.
Thursday marks the start of a roughly six-week sprint for the justices to finish their work by the end of June so they can head out for the summer recess.
We’ve got you covered with everything you need to know.
WHAT CASES ARE LEFT
We have yet to receive decisions in 37 argued cases, a bit more than half of the court’s caseload this term.
Dominating this year’s term are decisions that will bring the justices deep into the culture wars.
There are three cases before the justices where religion is a through line:
In Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the justices are tasked with deciding whether Oklahoma officials can approve the nation’s first publicly funded charter school, paving the way for a major decision regarding the role of religion in state-funded education.
The court must decide whether Wisconsin can deny a religious tax exemption to a social services arm of Catholic dioceses nationwide that was denied relief by the state and lower courts because it isn’t “operated primarily for religious purposes,” in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission — a decision that could drastically alter eligibility for such exemptions.
And in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the justices must determine whether Montgomery County, Md., is violating the First Amendment by failing to provide parents an opt-out option from LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary schools. Their ruling could expand the religious rights of parents.
Three other culture war-esque themes are dominating decision season this year: transgender rights, access to pornography and environmental protections.
The justices agreed to decide whether Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors is constitutional in United States v. Skrmetti, and they’ll determine what level of constitutional scrutiny applies to Texas’s age-verification law for porn websites in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton.
Five environmental cases remain, with questions spanning venue (EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining and Oklahoma v. EPA) and standing (Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA) to where used nuclear fuel can be stored (Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas) and whether agencies must study environmental impacts beyond the immediate effects of the action over which they have regulatory authority (Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado).
All that, on top of the court’s bloated emergency docket (see: last week’s newsletter), has set up a busy few weeks for the justices.
SCHEDULE
Beyond Thursday, the court has not yet officially announced any opinion days. But if they stick to the same schedule as in years past, here’s what you can expect:
- Opinions every Thursday until the end of June (except for Juneteenth, when the court is closed).
- At the start of June, the court will add a second day each week.
- In mid-June, the court will add a third day each week.
The justices try to finish up by June 30, which this year falls on a Monday. But as we saw last term, when the court handed down its presidential immunity decision on July 1, it doesn’t always happen.
HOW IT WORKS
Each opinion day, a buzzer will ring in the Supreme Court at exactly 10 a.m. EDT. The justices take the bench as Marshal Gail Curley famously cries out, “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!”
Immediately after taking their seats, Chief Justice John Roberts announces the justice who has the first opinion of the day and in what case.
Opinions are announced in reverse seniority based on the majority opinion’s author. So, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will always go first when she has an opinion, and Roberts goes last.
The author proceeds to read an oral summary of their opinion (for an example, click here to listen to the court’s presidential immunity announcement) as court staff hand out written copies to reporters assembled in the press room.
That’s where we’ll be, every opinion day.
Onward!
Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill’s weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Click above to email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48).
Not already on the list? Subscribe here.
In Focus
One nation, under injunction
Thursday is shaping up to be a lively morning at the Supreme Court, and not only because it’s an opinion day.
After the decisions are handed down, the justices will proceed to hear oral arguments on the Trump administration’s emergency bid to enforce the president’s birthright citizenship executive order in some parts of the country.
Trump issued the order on his first day in office, restricting birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to parents without legal status.
The case tees up a major battle over the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee backed by even some conservative legal scholars.
We published a story last weekend diving into that dynamic, but the constitutionality of Trump’s order isn’t expected to be the focus of Thursday’s arguments.
Instead, Solicitor General D. John Sauer is set to argue that federal district judges overstepped their authority when they found Trump’s order is likely illegal by blocking the policy nationwide, rather than merely against the parties suing in court.
The Supreme Court’s decision is poised to have ripple effects not only for the birthright citizenship battle, but also for the dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration where plaintiffs have pushed for such broad rulings.
Sauer in a recent court filing called the situation “intolerable,” noting that more nationwide injunctions have already been issued in Trump’s second term than during the entirety of former President Biden’s tenure.
“Those injunctions thwart the Executive Branch’s crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness,” Sauer wrote. “They repeatedly disrupt the operations of the Executive Branch up to the Cabinet level.”
Nationwide injunctions have seen a sharp rise in recent years, and have been met with skepticism from some of the Supreme Court’s conservatives. But the justices have yet to definitively curb the practice, despite two invitations to do so from the Biden administration in its final months.
“Universal relief is irreconcilable with those principles. Universal relief also creates other legal and practical problems,” Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden-era solicitor general, wrote in a December court filing urging the justices to take up the issue.
The court refused to do so, however. But now the question becomes, will the recent prolificity of nationwide injunctions now spur the justices to intervene?
Split-screen of officials charged over ICE conflicts
Two sitting officials accused of interfering with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are due in court Thursday for initial hearings, creating a split-screen of escalating consequences tied to Trump’s immigration agenda.
A Wisconsin judge and New Jersey mayor were both arrested after run-ins with ICE, aggressive moves by the administration on immigration enforcement that sparked fears of government overreach.
Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested last month amid an investigation into whether she attempted to help a noncitizen avoid arrest after he appeared in her courtroom.
In court filings, prosecutors said she guided Mexican immigrant Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a side door after learning ICE officials planned to arrest him after his hearing in her court. She’s charged with obstruction and concealing an individual to prevent their arrest.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court temporarily suspended her from the bench days after her arrest.
Weeks later, Newark, N.J., Mayor Ras Baraka, who is also running in the Democratic primary for governor, was detained after refusing to vacate an ICE detention center.
Alina Habba, who is interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey and previously served as a personal lawyer for Trump, announced the arrest on X, suggesting Baraka “committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself” from the ICE facility.
“He has willingly chosen to disregard the law,” Habba wrote, adding that “no one is above the law.”
The escalation in immigration enforcement comes as Trump has made cracking down on border control a key issue of his second term.
The Trump administration has taken aim at international students who supported pro-Palestinian demonstrations or had minor criminal records, in addition to alleged gang members. It has also sought to narrow birthright citizenship.
The clamp-down efforts have sparked dozens of legal challenges, which only continue to mount.
Thursday’s hearings will provide a taste of the government’s disposition toward each defendant.
Dugan is expected to enter a plea, while a status conference will commence in Baraka’s case. The government has asked the judge in Baraka’s case to quickly move to schedule a trial.
Justices wade into Trump, in their own way
During the Supreme Court’s two-week recess, the justices have increasingly waded into the president’s attacks on the courts at a string of recent public appearances. But each justice is striking a different tone.
The justices’ varying responses add another dimension to how the court has struggled to speak with one voice in matters concerning Trump’s administration. Many of the court’s emergency decisions on Trump policies have been deeply divided so far, including several 5-4 rulings.
Some of the strongest public pushback came from Jackson, the most junior justice and a member of the court’s liberal wing, during a speech at a judicial conference in Puerto Rico.
Jackson did not name Trump, but addressing what she called “the elephant in the room,” she focused her remarks on recent attacks on judges based on their rulings.
“Attacks on judicial independence are how countries that are not free, not fair, and not rule-of-law-oriented operate,” Jackson said.
Last Thursday, she echoed those sentiments in Kansas City, where the justice accepted an award named after former President Truman.
“For our democracy to function properly, and for the protection of the rights and liberties that all of us have in this country, judges must be allowed to reach their conclusions without ‘inappropriate pressure,’” Jackson said.
It’s not just Jackson. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the most senior member of the court’s liberal minority, also appeared to address recent attacks at a Thursday appearance at an American Bar Association event.
“Our job is to stand up for people who can’t do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes,” Sotomayor told the crowd of gathered lawyers.
“But right now, we can’t lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight,” she added.
The justices’ remarks follow months of attacks on the judiciary from Trump, who has insisted that the courts should not be allowed to curtail his executive power. Though Trump has targeted specific judges or rulings against his agenda, his criticism of the high court has been sparing.
Roberts, however, didn’t appear eager to engage on the subject when it came up at a fireside chat in Buffalo last week. When prompted by U.S. District Judge Lawrence Vilardo to discuss recent calls for impeaching judges, Roberts declined to go any further than his previous written statement rebuking Trump.
“I’ve already spoken to that, and impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions,” Roberts tersely responded.
Petition Pile
The Supreme Court will keep meeting for its weekly conferences during decision season. This week, the justices are set to consider 150 petitions to take up cases.
Among those are seven relists, all of which we’ve covered in past editions of The Gavel.
We want to flag an update on one of those: the dispute over Flat Oak, the sacred Apache site that was set to be converted into a copper mine.
For months, the justices have stalled on a petition seeking to block the federal government from transferring the property on religious grounds, Apache Stronghold v. United States. It’s up for its 15th conference this week.
As we outlined last month, the U.S. Forest Service has been taking steps to move things along, enabling the land to be transferred to the mining company as soon as June 16.
U.S. District Judge Steven Logan, who oversees the case in a lower court and sided with the government, is taking note of the case being relisted over and over. On Friday, Logan halted the plans until the Supreme Court decides what to do.
“Of course, this Court does not have a crystal ball to determine what the Supreme Court will, let alone should, decide,” wrote Logan, an appointee of former President Obama.
But the judge noted “there is good reason to anticipate that it will grant certiorari, given the fact that the case has been relisted thirteen times for consideration.”
Dr. Wendsler Nosie Sr., the leader of Apache Stronghold, said in a statement, “We are grateful the judge stopped this land grab in its tracks so that the Supreme Court has time to protect Oak Flat from destruction.”
Sidebar
- E. Jean Carroll, the writer who sued Trump for defamation, revealed in her newsletter Friday that one of her lawyers is currently clerking for Sotomayor.
- U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, a former President Clinton appointee who serves in Florida, was not happy to learn about the exodus of attorneys from the Justice Department’s civil rights division.
- Fix The Court, a watchdog that pushes for stronger ethics and transparency rules in the judiciary, sent a letter to every lawmaker on Capitol Hill calling for a supplemental spending bill to increase funding for the U.S. Marshals to protect judges in the wake of recent threats. The letter reads in part, “A supplemental of, say, $50 million, would provide critical protection to judicial officers at a time of great need.”
- Todd Blanche, Trump’s deputy attorney general who served as his top criminal defense attorney in last year’s hush money trial, is now the acting librarian of Congress after Trump fired Carla Hayden from the post last week.
On the docket
Don’t be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here’s what we’re watching for now:
Today:
- A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) and its board members’ challenge to DOGE’s takeover of the institute.
- A Washington D.C., federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to Trump’s executive order directing a review of all grants supporting undocumented migrants and pausing the grants pending that review.
- The same judge is set to hold a temporary restraining order hearing in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s challenge to Trump firing three of the group’s board members.
Thursday:
- The Supreme Court will announce opinions.
- The justices will hear oral arguments over the scope of an injunction blocking Trump’s executive order narrowing birthright citizenship.
- Baraka, the Newark, N.J., mayor who was arrested during a confrontation with ICE agents, is scheduled to appear for a status conference.
- Dugan, the Wisconsin judge who is accused of obstructing justice after sending a migrant out of her courtroom while federal agents waited to arrest him, is set to be arraigned.
- A federal judge in Maryland is set to hold a motions hearing in a challenge to the Trump administration efforts to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Afghanistan and Cameroon.
Friday:
- A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in the National Academy of Education and National Council on Measurement in Education’s lawsuit challenging the dismantling of the Education Department’s Institute of Education Sciences.
- A Maryland federal judge is scheduled to hold a hearing regarding discovery and privilege in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s challenge to his removal.
- A D.C. federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in the Signalgate case.
Monday:
- The Supreme Court will announce orders.
- A federal appeals court panel in Washington, D.C., will hear oral arguments in the Trump administration’s appeal of a judge’s order blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from clawing back billions of dollars in Biden-era climate grants.
- A federal judge in South Carolina will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on nonprofits and cities’ request to block the administration from freezing various environmental grants under the Inflation Reduction Act and the federal infrastructure law.
- A federal judge in Maryland is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Trump administration’s funding cuts to AmeriCorps, brought by D.C. and 22 states, as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D).
- A federal judge in D.C. is scheduled to hold an evidentiary hearing in a lawsuit challenging the closure of three Department of Homeland Security offices dedicated to protecting individual rights.
Tuesday:
- A federal judge in New York is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a Columbia student’s challenge to ICE‘s attempt to find and deport her, after participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
- A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in a challenge brought by two FTC appointees over their firings.
- A D.C. federal judge is scheduled to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Education Department’s efforts to obstruct Office of Civil Rights investigations.
- A federal judge in Rhode Island is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Department of Health and Human Services’s directive for a RIF and reorganization, brought by 20 Democratic attorneys general.
What we’re reading
- Concord Monitor’s Charlotte Matherly: “‘It was all about people’: New Hampshire remembers down-to-earth ‘humanity’ of David Souter, retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice”
- Courthouse News’s Benjamin Weiss: Judiciary officials cite threats against judges as they make case to Congress for more security funding
- The Volokh Conspiracy’s Eugene Volokh: Claim Can Go Forward Against American Publisher That Allegedly Knew Knew Author It Paid Was Hamas Hostage-Holder
- The Associated Press’s Sara Cline: A split jury and a lie sent him to prison. Now he’s working to change Louisiana’s law
- BBC’s Vanessa Buschschlüter: Crates full of Nazi documents found in Argentine court’s basement
Questions? Tips? Love letters, hate mail, pet pics?
Email us: elee@thehill.com and zschonfeld@thehill.com.
On Signal: @elee.03 and @zachschonfeld.48
