SCOTUStoday for Friday, April 3

Comedian John Mulaney appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” earlier this week and gave a shoutout to SCOTUSblog as he described being a “Supreme Court argument nerd.” Mama, […] The post SCOTUStoday for Friday, April 3 appeared first on SCOTUSblog .

SCOTUStoday for Friday, April 3

Comedian John Mulaney appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” earlier this week and gave a shoutout to SCOTUSblog as he described being a “Supreme Court argument nerd.” Mama, we made it.

Week in Review

The court heard four arguments this week and wrapped up its March argument session. Here are the links to SCOTUSblog’s coverage.

And on Tuesday, the court released its opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, in which it held that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy – as applied to Kaley Chiles’ talk therapy – regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts therefore erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny. For more on the ruling, see Amy’s opinion analysis.

At the Court

On Thursday, the justices met in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from that conference are expected on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

The court will next hear arguments on Monday, April 20, the first day of its April sitting.

Morning Reads

On birthright citizenship, Trump's restrictive immigration agenda hits a rare roadblock

Andrew Chung and John Kruzel, Reuters

President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting access to birthright citizenship is one part of a broader “agenda to restrict both legal and illegal immigration,” which has spawned multiple legal challenges, according to Reuters. But the Supreme Court’s apparent skepticism of the birthright citizenship order makes it stand out compared to other policy moves, which the justices have allowed to take effect “while the legal challenges play out.” Elora Mukherjee, director of the immigrant rights clinic at Columbia University’s law school, told Reuters that “it is not surprising” that the court may treat the order differently than other immigration issues. “Birthright citizenship is core to our identity as a nation,” Mukherjee said.

Tariff refund payments may take up to 45 days once system operational: Customs

Ashleigh Fields, The Hill

In a Tuesday filing with the U.S. Court of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection “said tariff refund payments may take up to 45 days to review and process once its new claims portal system is operational,” according to The Hill. “Brandon Lord, the CBP official who entered the Tuesday filing, says the administration’s new refund system is 60 to 85 percent complete. The system will accept refund applications without requiring the more than 330,000 importers who paid” the tariffs later struck down by the Supreme Court “to sue for reimbursement.”

LGBTQ faith leaders say Supreme Court's conversion therapy ruling will harm youth

Kathryn Post, Religion News Service

In a story on the Supreme Court’s Tuesday opinion holding that Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban likely violates free speech as applied to talk therapy, Religion News Service highlighted reactions from more liberal faith leaders, who criticized the court for overlooking the potential harms that can come from working with a therapist who does not affirm your sexual orientation or gender identity. “Several LGBTQ faith leaders told RNS that their top concern is how the ruling will impact LGBTQ youth, who might not have agency over the providers entrusted with their care.”

Is Birthright Citizenship Constitutional?

John Yoo and Pete Patterson, The Dispatch

In columns for The Dispatch’s debate series, John Yoo and Pete Patterson wrestled with whether the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to babies born to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the U.S. Yoo described the “case for birthright citizenship” as “straightforward,” writing that “[t]he text of the 14th Amendment, the historical record of its drafting and ratification, the common-law tradition it incorporated, and 127 years of Supreme Court precedent all support” it. Patterson, on the other hand, contended that the 14th Amendment “did not confer birthright citizenship on children born with only an ephemeral connection to the United States,” writing that arguments against this conclusion “cannot square with the text and history of the citizenship clause.”

Trump Will Lose the Birthright Citizenship Case. But in a Way, He’s Already Won.

Stephen I. Vladeck, The New York Times

In a column for The New York Times, Steve Vladeck reflected on the broader context surrounding the birthright citizenship case, and particularly on the Supreme Court’s June 2025 ruling on the universal injunctions that had put the executive order on birthright citizenship on hold nationwide. A 6-3 court held that the district courts that issued those injunctions likely exceeded their authority in a decision that “made it much harder for lower federal courts to block lawless executive action,” Vladeck wrote. In that sense, according to Vladeck, the Trump administration will walk away with a win even if the birthright citizenship order is struck down.

On Site

Argument Analysis

Court seems sympathetic to death-row inmate’s attempt to challenge racial discrimination in jury selection

The Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to a Mississippi man who argues that a district attorney violated the Constitution’s ban on racial discrimination in jury selection.

The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on March 04, 2026 in Washington, DC.
From the SCOTUSblog Team

The Supreme Court of India

For SCOTUSblog’s series on different supreme courts around the world, Zachary Shemtob spoke with Rohit De, an associate professor of history at Yale University, about the Supreme Court of India.

NEW DELHI, INDIA - JANUARY 5: A view outside the Supreme Court of India ahead of the hearing on Delhi 2020 Riots Case on January 5, 2026 in New Delhi, India.
Contributor Corner

Who is driving the conversation at the Supreme Court?

In his Empirical SCOTUS column, Adam Feldman analyzed the nature of the oral arguments that have taken place so far this term, exploring such questions as which justices are speaking most often and which arguments left more room than usual for uninterrupted advocacy.

Pulsifer v. US

Podcasts

Divided Argument

Jezebel Shouting

Will Baude and Dan Epps catch up on recent shadow docket activity and then dig into Olivier v. City of Brandon, the court’s unanimous March decision by Justice Elena Kagan.

SCOTUS Quote

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: “I think Mr. Sauer acknowledged that, and you mentioned this in your opening, that if we agree with you on how to read Wong Kim Ark, then you win. So that could be a – if we did agree with you on Wong Kim Ark, that could be just a short opinion, right, that says the better reading is Respondents’ reading, government doesn’t ask us to overrule, affirmed? Is that –”

MS. WANG: “Yes.”

(Laughter.)

Trump v. Barbara  (2026)

The post SCOTUStoday for Friday, April 3 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Need Support?

Find verified resources for reproductive healthcare, support services, and advocacy organizations.

Find Resources