Amidst the busy docket of ongoing and upcoming Supreme Court activities, attention is currently fixed on the impending oral arguments concerning President Donald Trump’s tariff policy, slated for November 5. SCOTUSblog will complement the proceedings with a live blog, while Amy from the Advisory Opinions podcast will join a live broadcast post-arguments. These events promise to provide real-time insights and analysis for those involved in intricate legal discussions.
- The Trump administration’s pursuit to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois remains unresolved, as does its effort to modify the rules concerning sex markers on passports.
- With the November sitting approaching, SCOTUSblog plans to publish case previews to aid legal professionals in staying ahead of critical arguments.
- Former Justice Anthony Kennedy will discuss his new memoir at an event at Stanford Law School, as announced in their schedule.
- Politico has reported on efforts by some Republican-led states to adapt to potential changes in the Voting Rights Act, as seen with Louisiana delaying its 2026 elections in anticipation of possible redistricting.
- The New York Times has covered President Trump’s formal appeal against his conviction for a scheme involving false business records tied to a 2016 election-related hush-money payment.
- Differing narratives in the Trump National Guard case illustrate the legal complexities facing the Supreme Court as it weighs the factual disputes.
- Jake Lang, a Jan. 6 defendant, continues to pursue a battle over police brutality, even as his initial criminal charges were dismissed by the high court last year.
- Neal Katyal, having won a coin toss against a fellow litigator, is set to argue on behalf of small businesses in an upcoming Supreme Court case regarding Trump’s tariffs.
The Supreme Court’s next private conference on November 7 will consider several petitions, such as Davis v. Ermold on same-sex marriage, Noem v. Al Otro Lado concerning asylum seekers, and Does 1-2 v. Hochul, focusing on religious objections to COVID-19 vaccination mandates. Justice Tom Clark’s words in Mapp v. Ohio resonate as the court addresses these pivotal issues, underscoring the imperative for legal consistency by observing foundational laws.