Today is Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s birthday. Born in 1954, Sotomayor has served on the court since 2009.
Plus, we will be live blogging this morning beginning at 9:30 a.m. EDT as the court announces opinions in one or more argued cases. We are expecting 12 more decisions by early July, including Trump v. Barbara (birthright citizenship); Trump v. Slaughter (removal protections for heads of independent agencies); Trump v. Cook (Trump’s effort to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook); West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox (transgender athletes); Watson v. Republican National Committee (mail-in voting); and Mullin v. Doe (Temporary Protected Status).
At the Court
After any opinion announcements this morning, the justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review.
Morning Reads
Trump's power takes center stage in US Supreme Court's home stretch
Andrew Chung, Reuters (paywalled)
As the court enters the home stretch of the current term, “some of its biggest cases yet to be decided will test Donald Trump’s aggressive efforts to expand presidential authority,” according to Reuters. “The cases involve his efforts to limit birthright citizenship, fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, oust Democratic members of independent agencies and terminate a humanitarian legal status protecting hundreds of thousands of Syrian and Haitian immigrants from deportation.” “It’s totally normal for the most important cases of the term to come out in the last few days. What is unusual is that there are so many blockbuster cases,” said Sam Erman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan, to Reuters.
Map Shows Abortions Per State 4 Years After SCOTUS Overturned Roe v. Wade
Anna Skinner, Newsweek
Four years after the “Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to abortion” in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the number of abortions taking place in the U.S. has not fallen as much as “lawmakers and advocates expected,” according to Newsweek. “Instead, it has climbed, and abortions are still happening even in states with the strictest bans.” Data from the Society of Family Planning shows that, “[i]n the states with the strictest bans, most abortions were provided via telehealth services.” “The ability to consult providers remotely and receive abortion pills by mail—including across state lines—has significantly lowered barriers for many people.”
Religious Prisoners Need Congress’s Help
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board (paywalled)
In an editorial on the court’s ruling in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board called on Congress to take action to avoid the consequences of the decision, which held that individual prison guards can’t be sued for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act for violating prisoners’ religious rights. “Occasionally a party that loses at the Supreme Court will still win the larger debate, because the legal outcome is such a frustration of justice that it prompts change,” the editorial said. “The case of Damon Landor, a dreadlocked Rastafarian who was forcibly shaved by state prison guards, belongs in this category.”
The Supreme Court’s Opinion Day Ritual Helps Conceal the Justices’ Favorite Lie
Jay Willis, Balls and Strikes
In a column for Balls and Strikes, Jay Willis took aim at the court’s process for releasing opinions, contending that it should no longer refuse to reveal in advance how many and which opinions will be released on a given opinion announcement day because “[n]othing about the Court’s work necessitates this performative melodrama.” “If the justices so desired,” Willis wrote, “they could announce with a reasonably high degree of confidence when they plan to publish a particular opinion. If the justices were hesitant to commit to a day, they could at least designate the week when, say, the parents of children whose citizenship status will be decided by Trump v. Barbara can actually expect to read it.”
On Site
From the SCOTUSblog Team
When Congress “overrides” the court
The Supreme Court doesn’t necessarily have the final say on an issue. Congress can limit the impact of a ruling by updating the statute the decision addressed, passing a new law, or proposing a constitutional amendment. Kelsey explored three of the most important examples of Congress “overruling” the court.
Contributor Corner
The blast radius of Callais – and what it means for Constitutional Law
In her Cases and Controversies column, Carolyn Shapiro reflected on what we know now about the significance of Louisiana v. Callais, about a month and a half since it was decided. She contended that Callais has not only “decimated voting rights protections for minorities,” but also fueled a push to rethink protections against race-based employment discrimination.
Podcasts
Advisory Opinions
Enforcing International Law in U.S. Courts
Sarah Isgur and David French explain the various legal complications of the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding and react to the opinions handed down by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
A Closer Look
Powell v. Securities and Exchange Commission
From 1972 until last month, settlement agreements with the Securities and Exchange Commission included a unique condition: Defendants had to agree not to publicly deny the SEC’s allegations against them. If they broke this “no-deny provision,” as the SEC called it (critics preferred “gag rule”), the commission could go back to the court that oversaw the settlement agreement and reopen the case.
In 2018, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which describes itself as “a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded ... to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State,” petitioned the SEC to amend the provision, contending that it violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. Five years later, and without a response from the commission, the NCLA renewed its petition, this time alongside several more challengers.
In January 2024, the SEC responded, denying the petition to amend the rule. Although one commissioner dissented, a majority concluded that the no-deny provision was both necessary and constitutional. “There is a large body of precedent confirming that a defendant can waive constitutional rights as part of a civil settlement, just as a criminal defendant can waive constitutional rights as part of a plea bargain,” they said.
The challengers appealed the SEC’s denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which has the authority to consider an SEC order so long as one of the challengers lives in the region it oversees. They asserted that the no-deny rule was unconstitutional on its face and that the SEC had violated the law governing administrative procedure when it put the rule in place.
In August 2025, the 9th Circuit denied this petition for review. It echoed the SEC’s conclusion, holding that “[t]he law has long regarded the voluntary relinquishment of constitutional rights as permissible, so long as appropriate safeguards are attached.” However, it added that it did not seek to “minimize petitioners’ concerns,” and suggested that their First Amendment questions would be “properly addressed in as-applied challenges” (that is, in specific circumstances) rather than the current facial-type one.
In March, the challengers filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, in which they urge the justices to take up the case and hold that the provision violates the First Amendment. “This ban requires Americans to take their unspoken grievances against the agency to their graves. The First Amendment prohibits that most un-American result,” they write.
The challengers describe the policy as “virtually unprecedented” and say it’s especially troubling given how common settlements are in SEC proceedings. “[T]he SEC’s enforcement actions often drag on for years. Running this gauntlet inflicts an enormous personal, financial, and reputational toll on the SEC’s targets. ... The burdens are so great that 98% of those charged by the SEC—often despite vigorously asserting their innocence and objecting to the agency’s actions—are ultimately forced to capitulate through settlement.”
In May, two months after the petition for review was filed, the SEC rescinded the challenged rule, acknowledging that the policy “may have created an incorrect impression that the Commission is trying to shield itself from criticism.” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer highlights this development in the SEC’s brief responding to the petition, arguing that the case is now moot. While he acknowledges that “a party cannot ‘automatically moot a case’” with a policy change, he writes that “such cessation does moot a case if the relevant practice ‘cannot reasonably be expected to recur,’” which he claims is true of the SEC’s decision.
Sauer adds that, even before the rescission of the rule, the case was not worthy of the court’s attention, because it does “not satisfy the court’s usual criteria.” Among other things, the 9th Circuit’s decision “does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals.”
In their reply brief, the challengers contend that the rescission of the rule “tells the Court everything it needs to know about the certworthiness of the question presented. Agencies do not vacate longstanding rules the moment litigation arrives at this Court (and the Solicitor General assumes the lead), unless the government is gravely concerned about the likelihood of this Court’s review and its ability to defend those rules on the merits.” They further argue that the case is not moot, because the “government provides no meaningful assurance that a future SEC will not revive the Gag Rule.”
Powell v. Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to be considered by the justices for the first time at their private conference on Thursday.
SCOTUS Quote
“When one intends the facts to which the law attaches consequences, he must abide the consequences, whether intended or not.”
— Justice Harlan Fiske Stone in Texas v. Florida (1939)