The Supreme Court is back in session this week, marking the unofficial end of its summer hiatus with the annual “long conference.” During this session, the justices will tackle up to 2,000 petitions that accumulated over the summer break. A key focus during this period is to determine which cases will proceed to full hearings in the coming term, potentially granting between five and 15 new cases.
Among the pressing issues is a cert petition from the Trump administration concerning the legality of an executive order on birthright citizenship. The request, submitted last Friday, follows previous lower court rulings and a June Supreme Court decision that sided with the administration, yet did not address the larger question of birthright citizenship itself. For a detailed analysis of this legal maneuver, see Amy Howe’s examination.
Additionally, there’s a notable emergency docket decision recently issued that allows the Trump administration to withhold nearly $4 billion in foreign-aid funding. This decision was made against a backdrop of dissent from Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who objected to the administration’s directive that foreign aid must align with the President’s foreign policy. Further analysis by Amy Howe provides insight into the court’s ruling.
Justice Clarence Thomas recently engaged with the topic of stare decisis in a public appearance, suggesting a potential reevaluation of how precedent guides judicial decision-making, a stance relevant to several cases in the upcoming term.
The Supreme Court’s docket this term is also set to revisit significant rulings such as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, addressing agency independence and employment protections.
The SCOTUSblog covers these developments alongside other reflections on the current judicial climate, including commentary from former and current justices like Anthony Kennedy and Amy Coney Barrett. Kennedy has shared concerns over increased partisanship, while Barrett’s originalism continues to spark discussions among legal scholars.
As the term progresses, legal professionals and scholars alike are closely watching how these legal battles and judicial philosophies will shape the landscape of American jurisprudence.