The tariffs argument lasted approximately two hours and 39 minutes. That’s long, but nothing compared to Gibbons v. Ogden.
On an entirely separate note, we are excited to announce that Advisory Opinions host and SCOTUSblog editor Sarah Isgur’s book is now available for pre-sale. According to her publisher, the book is “a myth-busting glimpse into the inner workings of the Supreme Court, revealing what we get wrong about the Roberts Court, what the justices’ clerks gossip about, and how to fix a court in crisis.” It’s an explainer for non-lawyers with plenty of fun tidbits for lawyers, too, including John Jay’s head injury, why the end of the filibuster is bad for the judiciary (and law students!), and who on the court is watching this season of Slow Horses. You can order a copy here.
SCOTUS Quick Hits
- The court heard argument yesterday on Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs. For key takeaways, check out Amy Howe’s coverage for SCOTUSblog, Advisory Opinions’ live broadcast after oral arguments ended, and analyses from Amy and Zachary Shemtob on C-SPAN.
- On Friday, the justices will take part in a private conference and discuss cases and petitions for review. One of those petitions is Davis v. Ermold, in which Kim Davis is challenging the court’s recognition of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
- Additional briefs in Trump v. Illinois, on President Donald Trump’s authority to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois, are due by Monday, Nov. 10. That’s also the due date for the response brief in Blanche v. Perlmutter, on whether the Supreme Court should pause an order that temporarily reinstated the top U.S. copyright official after her firing earlier this year.
Morning Reads
- Tariffs Are Here to Stay, Even if the Supreme Court Rules Against Trump (Ana Swanson, The New York Times)(Paywall) — To impose the tariffs at issue in the Supreme Court case, President Donald Trump invoked a law granting the president emergency powers. If the court holds that such emergency powers can’t be used in that way, it will be a “severe setback” for Trump, but “the president has plenty of other ways to tax imports,” according to The New York Times. “Trade lawyers and government officials say the administration could look to other legal provisions to cobble together a system of tariffs that could be less flexible but just as consequential as the emergency powers levies.”
- Will the Supreme Court case on tariffs affect my wallet? (Justin Jouvenal, The Washington Post)(Paywall) — Most of the analysis on the tariffs case has focused on what the court’s decision will mean for the Trump administration, the business community, and the country’s financial future, rather than individual consumers. The Washington Post explored that latter angle on Wednesday in an explainer on the case, noting that the ruling will affect individual pocketbooks. “Overall, price increases caused by tariffs will cost an average household about $2,400 in 2025, the Budget Lab calculates.”
- Holder pushes Democrats to consider reforming ‘broken’ Supreme Court (Tara Suter, The Hill) — Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder reiterated his call for Supreme Court reform during a recent appearance on “The MeidasTouch Podcast,” according to The Hill. If Democrats control the House, Senate, and White House after the 2028 election, they should consider making changes, he said. “I think, you know — the reality is, it pains me to say this — I think the Supreme Court is a broken institution, and it’s something that has to be, I think, a part of the national conversation in ‘26 and in ‘28, ‘What are we going to do about the Supreme Court?’” Holder said.
- The most horrifying religion case to hit the Supreme Court in years is also one of the hardest (Ian Millhiser, Vox) — When the court considers Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, a case on whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, it will confront the “muddled” landscape of religious liberty law, which features overlapping federal and state protections and at-times confusing political coalitions, according to Ian Millhiser of Vox.
- The Shortest SCOTUS Oral Argument In The Modern Era? (Josh Blackman, The Volokh Conspiracy, Reason) — In a post for The Volokh Conspiracy, Josh Blackman shared what he observed while attending Tuesday’s arguments on Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton, which lasted less than 40 minutes. The justices were considering a “fun, but nerdy” question about whether there is a time limit for setting aside a void judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, and they found time for a shared laugh, but not many questions.
A Closer Look: Coverage of the Tariffs Argument
Wednesday’s argument in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump was covered live by a great deal of outlets (including SCOTUSblog) and analyzed afterward by even more. One can get a good idea of how these media outlets think it went for the Trump administration based on their headlines, several of which are highlighted below. As you can see, one word in particular really seemed to be on journalists’ and editors’ minds.
Associated Press: Conservative Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of Trump’s sweeping unilateral tariffs
Reuters: US Supreme Court casts doubt on legality of Trump’s global tariffs
The Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Trump’s Tariffs
The New York Times: Key Justices Cast a Skeptical Eye on Trump’s Tariffs
The Washington Post: Supreme Court appears skeptical of legality of most of Trump’s tariffs
ABC News: Supreme Court hears Trump tariffs case, key justices appear skeptical of president’s power
The Washington Times: Supreme Court struggles with legality of Trump’s tariffs, questions his authority to bypass Congress
Politico: Justices appear skeptical of Trump’s broad tariffs
NPR: Supreme Court put Trump tariffs on a high-fire grill, in bipartisan scrutiny
Fox News: Barrett and Sotomayor tag-team interrogation of Trump lawyer on tariff powers
Vox: The Supreme Court might actually stand up to Trump on tariffs
SCOTUS Quote
JUSTICE ALITO: I found it interesting to hear you make the nondelegation argument, Mr. Katyal. I — I wonder if you ever thought that your legacy as a constitutional advocate would be the man who revived the nondelegation argument.
(Laughter.)
MR. KATYAL: Heck, yes, Justice Alito.
— Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
On Site
From Amy Howe
Court Appears Dubious of Trump’s Tariffs
The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed skeptical of President Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs in a series of executive orders earlier this year. During more than two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments, a majority of the justices appeared to agree with the small businesses and states challenging the tariffs that they exceeded the powers given to the president under a federal law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats, according to Amy’s argument analysis.
View from the Court
Trump’s Tariffs: From Dollars to Donuts
Read Mark Walsh’s latest View from the Court column to learn about the Trump administration officials, lawmakers, and celebrity comedian who attended Wednesday’s oral arguments.
Relist Watch
The Supreme Court is meeting in conference this Friday for the first time in three weeks. A lot of cases have built up during that time – 263 to be precise, almost twice as many cases as were at the last October conference. Only one of those cases has been relisted for the first time, though: Watson v. Republican National Committee, which asks the justices to decide what “election day” (or “the day for the election”) means. To learn more about Watson, read John Elwood’s latest Relist Watch column.
The post SCOTUStoday for Thursday, November 6 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
This post was originally published on here