On April 10, 1869, Congress passed legislation increasing the number of Supreme Court justices from seven to nine, where it’s remained since.
At the Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday denied Sam Ronan’s request to block Ohio election officials from removing him from the state’s Republican primary election ballot. Read Amy’s analysis to learn more about the dispute.
The court will next hear arguments on Monday, April 20, the first day of its April sitting.
Morning Reads
Trump May Use Emergency Law for Iran Tariffs Despite Court Ruling, Adviser Says
Hadriana Lowenkron and Greg Stohr, Bloomberg
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Thursday that “President Donald Trump has the authority to enact new Iran-related duties under an emergency law,” the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that “the Supreme Court previously ruled could not be used to impose tariffs,” according to Bloomberg. “This is clearly within the president’s tariff power,” Hassett said. “If we’re in a state of conflict, then you know, the IEEPA policy is exactly designed for that. And so countries really should be careful.” Bloomberg noted that the court’s tariffs ruling said “IEEPA ‘does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,’” and did not “carv[e] out an exception for military conflicts.”
Judge halts Trump administration move to end protections for Ethiopians
Zach Schonfeld, The Hill
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy “blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary deportation protections for thousands of Ethiopians, ruling on Wednesday that it likely disregarded the rules Congress set up for” the Temporary Protected Status program, according to The Hill. Specifically, Murphy held that “the DHS failed to consult with the proper agencies” before ending Ethiopians’ participation in TPS, describing its decision as “pretextual.” Later this month, the court will hear argument in two related cases – “challenges to ending protections for Haiti and Syria.”
Supreme Court remade by Trump ushers in historic defeats for civil rights
Justin Jouvenal, The Washington Post
A new analysis of 270 Supreme Court decisions handed down “between 2020 and 2024 — the first five terms of the six-justice conservative majority” — shows that, over that period, the court became “the first since at least the 1950s to reject civil rights claims in a majority of cases involving women and minorities,” according to The Washington Post. “The analysis shows that in addition to civil rights, the court powered by Trump’s picks — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — has pushed to the right of any modern court on religious rights and voting issues.”
Supreme Court Secrecy Includes Reasons for Recusal
Adam Liptak, The New York Times
In the latest edition of his newsletter for The New York Times, Adam Liptak highlighted a recent study on “the justices’ decisions about whether to disqualify themselves from cases in which they may have a conflict of interest.” The study from Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, who is a close friend of Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasized the lack of information about recusals and suggested policies that could assure court watchers that the ethics “guidelines are not mere lip service.” “One was the creation of a formal ethics office at the court that the justices could consult. The other, the focus of this item, was a little sunlight. In the absence of unusual circumstances, he wrote, justices should ‘release formal written statements explaining their reasons for recusing or not recusing.’”
Winning For Workers Before A Conservative Court: Jennifer Bennett
David Lat, Original Jurisdiction
For his Substack, Original Jurisdiction, David Lat spoke with Jennifer Bennett of Gupta Wessler, who “has argued five cases before the high court, and of the four that have been decided, she won all of them—with unanimous decisions each time.” They discussed how she prepares for oral argument before the Supreme Court and moments that stand out from her five appearances before the justices. “[T]he first time I was ever in the Supreme Court was my first Supreme Court argument,” Bennett recalled. “And you walk into the Court, and the bench is incredibly close to your face. And I just remember thinking, ‘If they hate you, they could spit at you!’”
On Site
Contributor Corner
Conversion therapy and professional speech
In his Courtly Observations column, Erwin Chemerinsky reflected on the court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar, in which it “essentially declar[ed] unconstitutional the Colorado law prohibiting talk therapy to attempt to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” The ruling “continues a pattern of inconsistent decisions concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech by professionals,” Chemerinsky wrote.
Contributor Corner
Legislative history lives on – in secret
In her Clear Statements column, Abbe R. Gluck examined the court’s current approach to statutory interpretation, pushing back against claims that textualism has displaced the use of congressional intent. “Rumors of the textualist triumph over legislative history have been greatly exaggerated,” Gluck wrote. “Whether the justices want to admit it or not, the court today is paying attention to legislative history and what it reveals about statutory purposes.”
Podcasts
Advisory Opinions
Trump’s ‘War Crimes’
Sarah Isgur and David French discuss President Donald Trump’s rhetoric over Iran, what constitutes a war crime, and what happens if a military officer fails to obey an order or regulation.
Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson
Very few Americans have held prominent positions in all three branches of the federal government. The 13th chief justice was one of them.
Frederick Moore Vinson was born in 1890 in Louisa, Kentucky, a small town near the border of West Virginia and Kentucky, to a southern family of “reduced circumstances.” While on the campaign trail a few decades later, Vinson would joke that he was “born in jail” – which was not entirely untrue, given his father worked as the county jailer and the family lived in front of it. Vinson interacted with the law fairly early on, as a local judge sometimes allowed him to sit near the bench while a case was in session. But Vinson’s interests weren’t entirely cerebral: the future chief justice was also reportedly an excellent student athlete, playing as quarterback of his football team before heading off to Kentucky Normal School (yes, it was called “Normal School”) and then to Centre College, where he graduated from its law department – at the top of his class – in 1911.
In a special January 1924 election, Vinson was elected to Congress as a Democrat. He would serve until 1938, with just one interruption due to a 1928 defeat, the first and only election that Vinson lost. In Congress, he was known as an expert on fiscal policy and became a reliable ally of the New Deal. Vinson also “played a leading role in shaping the Social Security Act (1935) and supporting President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Court-packing plan.”
In 1938, Roosevelt appointed Vinson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. But the country’s involvement in World War II led Vinson to move to the executive branch; in 1943, Vinson became director of the office of economic stabilization, where he helped oversee the wartime American economy and controlled inflation. In July 1944, Vinson chaired the American delegation to the Bretton Woods Conference to reshape the world’s monetary order. In 1946, President Harry Truman named him Secretary of the Treasury. (Vinson’s seeming willingness to take on whatever Washington needed earned him the nickname “Available Vinson“).
After Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone died in 1946, former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and former Associate Justice Owen Roberts both recommended Vinson as chief to Truman, with Hughes noting that “the Chief Justice of the United States should not only know the law but that he should understand politics and government.” Truman took Hughes’ advice and nominated Vinson to the center seat on June 6, 1946. The Senate confirmed his appointment on June 20. Truman’s hope was that Vinson (who, by the way, had been a regular at his White House poker games) could calm a divided court, led by Justice Hugo Black on one side and Justice Felix Frankfurter on the other.
Despite his impressive background, Vinson did not exactly establish himself as a heavyweight on the bench. Vinson preferred a restrained judiciary, encouraging the court to defer to the executive branch when evaluating its actions. In 1951’s Dennis v. United States, for example, Vinson wrote for a court plurality affirming the convictions of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, extending the “clear and present danger” test to cover conspiracies advocating violent overthrow of the government even if the perceived threat was relatively remote. Vinson also dissented in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where he argued that Truman’s seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War was a legitimate use of presidential power to prevent a strike. Nor, as Truman had hoped, was Vinson able to tame a fractured court: although he was in the majority a staggering 97% of the time in one term, only around 30% of his court’s decisions proved unanimous (during the Roberts era, that figure is around 42%).
Vinson’s more enduring legacy, however, may lie in the realm of civil rights. In 1948’s Shelley v. Kraemer, Vinson held that enforcement of “racially restrictive [housing] covenants” violated the equal protection clause. Two years later, in Sweatt v. Painter, Vinson wrote for a unanimous court that a qualified Black law school applicant could not be constitutionally denied admission to the University of Texas Law School under the “separate, but equal” doctrine.
Although Vinson heard Brown v. Board of Education, he never got to decide it – just before Brown was scheduled for reargument, the chief justice died of a heart attack at the age of 63. It is unclear how Vinson would have voted in Brown – while some have expressed doubt that he would have been willing to make such a momentous decision, others contend that Vinson would have – like his successor, Chief Justice Earl Warren – authored a unanimous opinion invalidating segregation in public schools. According to Carlton Larson on SCOTUSblog back in 2012, had Vinson lived only slightly longer, “Brown would be seen not as the opening salvo of the Warren Court, but as the logical culmination of Vinson’s decisions in a line of unanimous race cases.”
SCOTUS Quote
“When you go see an argument, you’ve been on the opposite side, you know that this court is an extremely well-prepared court, that the justices have read the briefs, that the justices know the case. And I think our conversation in conference reflects that. It’s substantive. It’s a conversation that only people who have really done the reading and done the thinking could have. And again, I think if you were a fly on the wall, you would be pretty proud of the institution.”
— Justice Elena Kagan (2019)
The post SCOTUStoday for Friday, April 10 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

