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.
- Abouammo v. United States: Case Preview and Argument Analysis
- Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties: Case Preview and Argument Analysis
- Pitchford v. Cain: Case Preview and Argument Analysis
- Trump v. Barbara: Case Preview and Argument Analysis
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
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 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.
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.
Podcasts
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.
Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone
Supreme Court nominees today can expect to spend several days before the Senate Judiciary Committee, fielding questions from “Where were you at on Christmas?” to “Can you hold up what you’ve been referring to in answering our questions?” or, on a more serious note, what the Ninth Amendment means. Each nominee, at least since 1925, has the 12th chief justice to thank: Harlan Fiske Stone was the first nominee to appear at a confirmation hearing before the committee.
When President Calvin Coolidge nominated Stone, who was attorney general, to the Supreme Court on Jan. 5, 1925, much of the press agreed that his “character, learning, and temperament perfectly suited him to the job.” But progressive Democrat and former U.S. attorney Sen. Burton K. Wheeler and his allies soon convinced the Senate to return the nomination to committee based on aggressive actions Stone had taken as the nation’s top prosecutor. The “unprecedented compromise” was not to reject Stone entirely but allow him a hearing before the committee. Stone subsequently gave a “masterful” five hours of public testimony, which “cleared the way for his quick confirmation.” (The committee didn’t formally implement the requirement to appear before it until 1955.)
But back to the beginning. Born on a farm in Chesterfield, New Hampshire, in 1872, Stone grew up in Amherst, Massachusetts, and graduated from Amherst College in 1894, where he played football alongside his fellow student (and future president) Calvin Coolidge. Stone’s classmates predicted that he would “proceed to be the most famous man” of their 1894 class. After law school at Columbia, Stone divided his time for several decades between private practice and academia. He eventually became dean of Columbia Law School in 1910, where he remained for 13 years until Coolidge appointed him attorney general in 1924 and nominated him to the court the following year.
On the bench, Stone aligned himself with the liberal wing anchored by Justices Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo, and the three came to be labeled the “Three Musketeers.” In particular, Stone was known for his willingness to dissent alone when he believed the court had gone awry. In 1940, for example, he was the sole dissenter in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, which held that public schools’ mandatory flag salute did not violate the First and 14th Amendments. In his dissent, Stone wrote that the “very essence of the liberty” under the Constitution “is the freedom of the individual from compulsion as to what he shall think and what he shall say.” Three years later, the court sided with Stone and overturned Gobitis by a 6-3 vote in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette.
But Stone’s most enduring contribution may have come in 1938 in “[t]he footnote that broke constitutional law.” In United States v. Carolene Products Co., a case about a ban on “filled milk,” Stone added what would become the famous footnote four: a suggestion, as explained by SCOTUSblog recurring columnist Anastasia Boden, that “laws should be presumed constitutional unless they interfered with ‘the corrective political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation.’” Although, according to his clerk, Stone wrote these words as “a starting point for debate,” the footnote took on a life of its own, forming the impetus for the modern “tiers of scrutiny” that (mostly) govern constitutional law to this day.
After several years on the court, Stone was appointed chief justice in 1941 by President Franklin Roosevelt to succeed Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. The role proved harder to manage than his years as an associate justice, as Stone struggled to contain rivalries among his strong-willed colleagues. He never got the chance to fully address those challenges. In April 1946, Stone suffered a cerebral hemorrhage while presiding over a session of the Supreme Court and died a few hours later at the age of 73. He was buried in Rock Creek Cemetery and succeeded by Chief Justice Fred Vinson.
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.

