Reminder: Tomorrow is a big day for SCOTUSblog. We will be launching our rebuilt website and hosting a live blog for the possible announcement of opinions. Thanks for being part of our community as we continue to innovate and grow.
At the Court
On Monday, the court added two cases to its oral argument docket for the 2026-27 term. One is a religious liberty case concerning a Catholic preschool challenging its exclusion from a Colorado “universal preschool” program. The other is a Texas man’s challenge to his sentence for possession of a gun. The court also summarily reversed, over the objections of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a decision from Washington, D.C.’s highest court that had thrown out the convictions of a teenage driver over the actions of the arresting officer. For other takeaways from Monday’s order list, see the On Site section below.
Also on Monday, the justices heard argument in two cases: Sripetch v. SEC, on whether the Securities and Exchange Commission can use disgorgement to force a wrongdoer to turn over its profits to the government without showing directly that the wrongdoer’s activities harmed its customers; and T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., on whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which limits lower federal courts’ authority to review state-court judgments, applies when such judgments remain subject to further review in state courts.
Today, the justices will hear argument in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc., on whether the FCC violates the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a right to a jury trial when it imposes fines for violations of federal communications laws.
The court has indicated that it may announce opinions tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. EDT. We will be live blogging beginning at 9:30 a.m.
After the possible announcement of opinions, the justices will hear argument in Blanche v. Lau, on the rights of lawful permanent residents who have been accused of committing a crime that puts them at risk of being removed from the country.
Morning Reads
Trump Administration Takes Steps to Refund $166 Billion in Tariffs
Tony Romm and Ana Swanson, The New York Times
On Monday, two months after the Supreme Court released its tariffs ruling, the federal government began accepting requests for tariff refunds. “For some U.S. businesses, the highly anticipated refunds could be substantial, offering critical if belated financial relief,” according to The New York Times. And although the process for “submitting documentation to the government to recover what they paid in illegal tariffs” was working as expected on Monday, some business leaders are still feeling uncertain about how quickly they’ll receive a refund – or if they’ll receive one at all. “I wouldn’t say I’m at all optimistic that they are going to come in a timely manner,” said Cassie Abel, the founder and chief executive of the clothing company Wild Rye. The Times noted that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has said “it expected it would take 60 to 90 days to issue a refund once it accepts an importer’s filing.”
Supreme Court justices turn children’s books into big paydays
Julian Mark, The Washington Post
In May, Justice Neil Gorsuch “will release his first children’s book,” “an illustrated storybook about America’s Founding Fathers, timed to the nation’s 250th birthday.” In doing so, Gorsuch will further a trend toward writing for younger audiences that’s sweeping through the Supreme Court, according to The Washington Post. “Justice Sonia Sotomayor has published five books for younger audiences,” and “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson released a young-adult version of her memoir, ‘Lovely One.’” The article explained that justices “can make tens of thousands of dollars from diving into kid lit,” noting Sotomayor “has reported receiving more than $870,000 in total in advances and royalties from 2017 to 2024, a period in which she published three children’s books and one for young adults.”
Snohomish firefighters petition Supreme Court over COVID shot mandate
Paige Cornwell, The Seattle Times
Eight firefighters who sued their employer for religious discrimination in 2022 after being placed on leave over their refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19 “have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case,” according to The Seattle Times. The firefighters allege that Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue “violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination, and Washington’s Law Against Discrimination” by refusing to make reasonable accommodations that would have allowed them to remain unvaccinated while continuing to work. They are seeking “backpay for the time they were on unpaid leave, and unspecified damages.” A federal district court in Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the fire agency.
Kalshi’s fight over sports betting is hurtling toward the Supreme Court—and the future of gambling is at stake
Jeff John Roberts, Fortune
As Kalshi – a prediction market that offers user-to-user event contracts rather than traditional bets and thus seeks to be regulated like a stock market – has become more popular, “state governments and Native American tribes … have filed a flood of legal challenges” against the company, alleging that “Kalshi is running an unlicensed gambling operation,” according to Fortune. “Judges in at least three states have agreed with this argument, but others have sided with Kalshi and held instead that its sports wagers are a unique type of contract allowed by federal law.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit recently became the first federal appeals court to weigh in and ruled for Kalshi, but the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is expected to rule against the company later this year. “If that occurs, or if another appeals court rules against Kalshi, the issue will be teed up for the Supreme Court by next year, according to gaming industry lawyers, who believe this is a likely outcome.”
Dems Aren’t Buying Reports of Alito Staying Put
Lauren Egan, The Bulwark
In a column for The Bulwark, Lauren Egan explored Democrats’ response to reports that Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are not planning to retire this year, noting “a liberal judicial advocacy group” called Demand Justice is “treating the reports as smokescreens” and “plow[ing] forward with a major campaign” aimed at making a possible confirmation “fight as painful … as possible.” “The group will conduct polls and focus groups in battleground states in the coming weeks with the goal of finalizing messaging that resonates with not just their base voters, but independents and Republicans,” such as that whoever Trump would next appoint to the Supreme Court would champion “the billionaire and the corporate class” and “not be a reliable vote on the Court for everyday people.”
On Site
From the SCOTUSblog Team
Supreme Court will hear religious liberty case on Catholic preschools and LGBTQ families
The justices on Monday morning agreed to take up the case of a Catholic preschool challenging its exclusion from a Colorado “universal preschool” program. They also agreed to review a Texas man’s challenge to his sentence for possession of a gun, although they declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of the conviction itself. These are among the takeaways from Monday’s order list, which included several other notable updates.
Argument Analysis
Justices debate the relationship between state and federal courts
The justices on Monday considered the proper relationship between state and federal courts and wrestled with confusion surrounding a doctrine addressing that relationship as they heard oral argument in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System.
Contributor Corner
Why the Supreme Court’s birthright-citizenship decision may depend on the meaning of “domicile”
In his Immigration Matters column, César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández revisited the oral argument in the birthright citizenship case, highlighting the significance of the legal concept of domicile and how this may be pivotal to how the justices resolve the case.
Justices and Mental Illness
It is believed that over 20% of U.S. adults suffer from some form of mental illness. Justices – like everyone else – have not been spared from this.
The first mention of a justice experiencing a mental health crisis was Chief Justice John Rutledge, who served on the court in the 1790s. After Rutledge’s wife passed away in 1792, he reportedly suffered intermittent episodes of depression, compounded by his mounting financial troubles. After the Senate rejected his nomination as chief 14-10 (he had been recess appointed by President George Washington), a despondent Rutledge attempted to drown himself off a Charleston dock, but was rescued by two enslaved people who spotted him in the water. He then withdrew from public life until his death in 1800.
Justice Henry Baldwin also reportedly suffered from mental illness. In December 1832, reports described how Baldwin – appointed to the court by President Andrew Jackson in 1830 – had been “seized today with a fit of derangement,” and Supreme Court advocate Daniel Webster shortly thereafter told a friend of “the breaking out of Judge Baldwin’s insanity.” Baldwin apparently wrote incoherent legal opinions, acted erratically in court (and elsewhere), and even sometimes had violent outbursts. Baldwin missed the entire 1833 term after being hospitalized for “incurable lunacy,” and in May of that year, his colleague Justice Joseph Story wrote to a circuit judge that “I am sure he cannot be sane. … [T]he only charitable view, which I can take of any of his conduct, is, that he is partially deranged at all times.” Nonetheless, Baldwin returned the following year and served 11 more years on the court until his death in 1844.
Justice Frank Murphy, who was nominated by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1940 (and is well known today for his dissent in Korematsu v. U.S., which held that the government acted constitutionally in forcing certain Japanese-Americans to move to relocation camps during WWII) became dependent on sleeping pills following several hospitalizations, although consultations with a psychoanalyst reportedly helped his mood. Unfortunately, Murphy later became addicted to the painkiller Demerol, and some believed that he “was regularly purchasing illegal drugs.”
Appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1957, Justice Charles Whittaker agonized for months over how to vote in Baker v. Carr, a landmark reapportionment case. He found himself “paralyzed by indecision,” and in the spring of 1962 suffered a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized. Shortly after, he resigned from the court.
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, a prolific opinion writer for the court throughout FDR’s New Deal battles, suffered from depression and anxiety. At times, he needed a day in bed after a stressful workday and “[a]t least once” received “electroshock treatments” for the condition. However, Hughes kept his condition hidden from the public, given that it would have ended his career (decades later, a senator withdrew from the vice-presidential race after his electroshock therapy treatment became public).
Of course, other justices likely also dealt with mental illness – but either suffered in silence or were able to keep their conditions discreet.
SCOTUS Quote
MS. BLATT: “[S]o, no, you’re not going to overrule Rooker. I mean, sorry, I don’t think you’re going to do that.”
(Laughter.)
“Not in an April case. Not happening.”
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE ALITO: “Don’t – don’t dare my colleagues.”
(Laughter.)
MS. BLATT: “Okay. I’m sorry. A little too much.”
— T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp. (2026)
The post Court adds two cases to 2026-27 docket appeared first on SCOTUSblog.