As you might have seen yesterday, we have a favor to ask those of you who are in the legal profession: Could you fill out this brief survey about your work? We’re looking to better understand segments of our audience and the tools they use.
And this week, Justice Clarence Thomas passed Chief Justice John Marshall on the list of longest-serving Supreme Court justices. Thomas is now the fourth-longest serving justice in history and just over two years away from the top of the list.
Week in Review
The court heard four arguments this week, during the first half of the March sitting. Here are the links to SCOTUSblog’s coverage.
- Watson v. Republican National Committee: Case Preview and Argument Analysis
- Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction: Case Preview and Argument Analysis
- Noem v. Al Otro Lado: Case Preview and Argument Analysis
- Flowers Foods v. Brock: Case Preview and Argument Analysis
And on Wednesday, the court released opinions in two argued cases: Rico v. United States and Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment.
- In Rico, the court held that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 does not authorize a rule automatically extending a defendant’s term of supervised release when the defendant fails to report to a probation officer.
- In Cox Communications, the court held that a company is not liable for copyright infringement for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.
At the Court
Today, the justices will meet 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.
On Monday, the court will hear argument in Abouammo v. United States, on whether federal prosecutors can try a defendant not only in the district where the offense occurred, but also in the district where the crime’s “contemplated effects” were felt; and Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, on the jurisdiction of federal courts to enforce an arbitration award.
On Wednesday, we will be live blogging as the Supreme Court hears argument in Trump v. Barbara, on President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting access to birthright citizenship.
Morning Reads
US Supreme Court seeks $25.4 million funding boost for security, cyber protection
Nate Raymond, Reuters
In a budget request to Congress addressing the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2026, the Supreme Court is seeking “an additional $25.4 million to further boost physical and cyber security for the court, including by expanding protective services for the nine justices’ residences and their families,” according to Reuters. The funding would, among other things, allow the court “to expand the security activities of its in-house security force, the Supreme Court Police, by funding an additional six agents per justice and an administrative support position” and “also cover the cost of 25 officers who would enhance security at the Supreme Court’s building; four additional administrative positions to support the Supreme Court Police’s recent growth; and travel to provide security to the justices when they are outside of Washington, D.C.”
Trump Calls for Law Cracking Down on Crime and ‘Rogue Judges’
Chris Cameron, The New York Times
During an appearance at a National Republican Congressional Committee event in Washington on Wednesday, President Donald Trump “call[ed] on Republican lawmakers to pass a crime bill that ‘cracks down on rogue judges.’” “The time has … come for Republicans to pass a tough new crime bill that imposes harsh penalties for dangerous repeat offenders, cracks down on rogue judges. We got rogue judges that are criminals. They are criminals, what they do to our country,” the president said, according to The New York Times. Trump also again criticized the Supreme Court’s tariffs ruling, contending that the court should have made it clear that the government didn’t have to provide refunds. “The Supreme Court didn’t want to put one little sentence that all money taken in up ‘til this day doesn’t have to be paid back,” Trump said. “Going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. So sad to see.”
Trump slams Supreme Court justices he appointed as ‘bad for our country’ after tariff ruling
Michael Sinkewicz, Fox Business
During Wednesday’s National Republican Congressional Committee event, Trump also “expressed frustration with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, though he did not mention them by name,” according to Fox Business. “Two of the people that voted for [the tariffs ruling], I appointed, and they sicken me,” the president said. “They sicken me because they’re bad for our country.”
Trump administration being ‘pragmatic’ on tariff refunds, former officials say
Gregory Svirnovskiy and Daniel Desrochers, Politico
In early March, U.S. Customs and Border Protection faced pushback “when it asked for a 45-day extension to begin the tariff refund process.” But, according to Politico, “[v]eterans of the Biden and first Trump administration are giving the White House relatively high marks for its handling” of that process since then, contending it “has shown no signs of abandoning its obligations.” “To date, the government has actually been pretty pragmatic,” said Greta Peisch, who served as general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative when President Joe Biden was in office. “My view is [the administration’s refund response] is better than expected.”
What Americans really think about men in women’s sports
Ryan Owens, The Washington Times
In a column for The Washington Times, Ryan Owens highlighted a new survey on sports and gender which found that 79% of Americans show support for policies barring transgender athletes from competing in high school girls’ sports. The survey’s findings, according to Owens, are at odds with comments made when the Supreme Court heard argument in “two cases about whether states may limit girls’ sports teams to biological females.” “An attorney at the court’s January hearing called the issue ‘hotly disputed,’” Owens wrote. “Our data tells a different story.” He continued, “Those views could change over time, but for now, the court could uphold sex-based rules for girls’ sports without facing major public backlash.”
On Site
Brady violations, child abduction, qualified immunity, and confessions of error
In his Relist Watch column, John Elwood highlighted six petitions for review that were newly relisted for today’s conference. They address such issues as qualified immunity; the Hague Convention and abducted children; and intellectual disability and the death penalty.
Court rejects billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement by internet service provider
On Wednesday, the court unanimously ruled against Sony Entertainment, rejecting its effort to hold Cox Communications, an internet service provider, liable for copyright infringement by Cox’s subscribers. Justice Clarence Thomas’ brief opinion made it clear that content providers like Sony that are worried about copyright infringement are not going to get anywhere by suing internet service providers like Cox.
Court repudiates extension of federal supervised release while a defendant absconds
After completing a term of imprisonment, federal criminal defendants often serve terms of supervised release that usually last between one and five years, depending on the offense for which they were convicted. In a narrow ruling, the court held, 8-1, that this supervised release time does not automatically extend when a defendant on supervision flees.
Justices debate arbitration exemption for “last-mile” drivers
On Wednesday, the justices considered the scope of an exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act for interstate transportation workers. Specifically, the question is whether that exemption reaches “last-mile” drivers who don’t themselves cross state lines, even though the goods they are delivering are on an interstate journey.
When the Supreme Court let a president get away with redefining birthright citizenship
In a column for SCOTUSblog, Neil Weare explored President William McKinley’s effort to disrupt the long-settled meaning of the 14th Amendment’s “citizenship clause to deny citizenship to people born in Puerto Rico, Guam, and other territories that became subject to the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States following” the Spanish-American War, comparing it to Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship that is now before the Supreme Court.
Podcasts
Mail-in Ballot Deadlines Challenged in Court
Sarah Isgur and David French discuss two Supreme Court oral arguments: one on Mississippi accepting ballots five days after Election Day and one on turning away asylum seekers before they reach the border.
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes
Charles Evans Hughes is one of only five justices in the court’s history to leave the Supreme Court to try and obtain what some (though only some) might call a better position.
Born to David Charles Hughes, an English immigrant and Baptist minister, and Mary Catherine Connelly Hughes in Glens Falls, New York, in 1862, Hughes attended Madison University (now Colgate University) before transferring to Brown University, graduating in 1881. He then attended law school at Columbia University, graduating in 1884. After passing the bar (he reportedly scored an impressive 99 ½), Hughes practiced law in New York City before teaching at Cornell Law School for two years in the 1890s during a stress-induced sabbatical from his legal practice.
Apparently somewhat recovered from his stress, Hughes moved to a more public career in the early 1900s after leading a pair of high-profile investigations (one into abuses in New York’s public utilities industry, and the other in the life insurance business). This led to a dramatic rise in his political fortune: After gaining support from President Theodore Roosevelt, Hughes ran for governor of New York and was elected in 1906 (narrowly beating William Randolph Hearst).
In 1910, President William Howard Taft nominated Hughes to the court, “in part to remove a likely challenger from the 1912 presidential election.” The Senate handily confirmed Hughes in May 1910. If Taft thought he had politically neutralized Hughes, however, he was wrong: Hughes ran for president in 1916, reportedly wanting to dispel the notion that he was a man “who placed his own comfort and preference for the life of a judge above his duty to the nation.” In this, Hughes became the first (and to date, only) sitting justice to be nominated for the presidency by a major party – though he resigned from the court after being nominated. After running a seemingly successful campaign, Hughes went to sleep on election night after being told by his advisers that he had won – only to lose California by a few thousand votes, which swung the Electoral College for Woodrow Wilson.
But Hughes’ political career was far from over. After working again in private practice, he returned to public service as Secretary of State in 1921 under President Warren Harding, where he negotiated the 1922 Five-Power Naval Limitation Treaty, designed to prevent a naval arms race between the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, and Italy. Hughes also negotiated the Treaty of Berlin, a peace treaty between the U.S. and Germany. It was during these years out of the judiciary that Hughes developed his theory of the Constitution in wartime, captured in his famous axiom, “the power to wage war is the power to wage war successfully.”
In 1930, Hughes was nominated as chief justice by President Herbert Hoover to fill a seat vacated by Taft. In other words, the man who had first put Hughes on the court was now his predecessor in the center chair. Hughes’ confirmation was relatively swift but not seamless (in particular, he was accused of being too supportive of corporate interests), and the Senate eventually voted 52–26 to confirm him. (When Hughes became chief justice, his son, Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., resigned from his position as solicitor general, presumably to avoid a conflict of interest.)
On the bench, Hughes was a prolific opinion-writer; between 1930 and 1938, he wrote approximately 21 opinions each term. He was also a strategic “assigner” of opinions, doing so based on justices’ particular predilections or specialties. And Hughes certainly played the part of chief justice. As Justice Robert Jackson, a future Nuremberg prosecutor, once put it, “Hughes looked like God and talked like God.”
Some of Hughes’ most famous decisions include Near v. Minnesota in 1931, which held that the government could not prevent articles from being published except in very limited circumstances, and 1937’s NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. , which held the Wagner Act (which prohibited employers from engaging in certain unfair labor practices) to be constitutional.
But perhaps the greatest test of Hughes’ tenure came in 1937, when he navigated President Franklin Roosevelt’s plan to increase the number of justices on the court so as to fill it with sympathetic justices. During this, Hughes worked with Sen. Burton Wheeler of Montana, a Democrat who agreed to lead the opposition to the court-packing bill – and with the approval of both liberal Justice Louis Brandeis and conservative Justice Willis Van Devanter, Hughes sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee countering the president’s argument that the court needed to be made larger because of the slow pace of its decision-making (“calmly point[ing] out that the Court was keeping up with its work.”) The plan was killed in the Senate that July, and FDR grudgingly remarked that Hughes was the best politician in the nation.
Hughes retired in 1941, having held the court together through the Great Depression and FDR’s attacks on it. He died in 1948 of pneumonia and heart disease and was buried in New York City. For a man who spent much of his career in politics and the judiciary, it is perhaps fitting that one of his most notable acts was refusing to let the court’s independence be dramatically weakened by the other branches.
SCOTUS Quote
JUSTICE GORSUCH: “If you should lose, that’s a question for another day?”
MS. LOVITT: “And then maybe you’ll see me here again in another year.”
— Flowers Foods v. Brock (2026)
The post SCOTUStoday for Friday, March 27 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.



