As the U.S. Supreme Court considered its high-profile case on tariffs, the Supreme Court of Canada was considering a major case of its own. The case, which concerned a dispute over the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s plan to cull more than 300 ostriches from a rural farm due to concerns about avian flu, garnered international attention. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the farm’s appeal, and the ostriches are now expected to be euthanized.
Though it has nothing to do with ostriches or Canada, you can be part of what comes next at SCOTUSblog. We’re exploring how to better serve legal professionals who need reliable updates across the courts and hope you will consider taking a brief survey about the future of SCOTUSblog. Complete the survey and you’ll be entered to win a signed copy of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s new book, Listening to the Law. (We’ll notify the winner by email once the survey period ends.)
And did you hear? You can now get CLE credit for listening to Advisory Opinions. Click here to learn more.
Week in Review
The November sitting is already halfway over. Here are the links to SCOTUSblog’s coverage of the cases that have been heard so far:
SCOTUS Quick Hits
- The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with the Trump administration in a dispute over sex markers on passports, putting on hold lower court rulings that would have required the State Department to issue passports to transgender and nonbinary Americans that reflected the sex designation of their choosing. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
- Today, 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.
- Monday is 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
- Lawmakers Seek Investigation of Judges Who Criticized Supreme Court (Karoun Demirjian, The New York Times)(Paywall) — Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who lead the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, respectively, asked “Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Wednesday to look into whether federal judges who responded to a New York Times questionnaire with criticism of the Supreme Court had violated their ethics obligations,” according to The New York Times. That questionnaire was the basis of an Oct. 11 Times story that highlighted judges’ frustrations with the Supreme Court’s emergency orders. “We are deeply concerned that these public attacks on the court from sitting federal judges damage the public’s faith and confidence in our judicial system,” Grassley and Jordan wrote to Roberts. “When judges call into question the legitimacy of their own branch of government, they erode faith in the institution itself.”
- Trump gets new review of New York criminal hush money case (Jonathan Stempel and Luc Cohen, Reuters) — A federal appeals court on Thursday granted President Donald Trump’s request for a judge to review whether his New York state hush money case “belonged in federal court” because it involved “evidence from his first White House term,” according to Reuters. “A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan should review more closely how the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in July 2024 giving Trump broad immunity from prosecution affected the New York case.” The New York case centers on claims that Trump falsified business records in order to cover up a “$130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels,” who claimed “to have had a sexual encounter with him.”
- Supreme Court’s Skepticism on Trump Tariffs Means Uncertainty Reigns (Shawn Donnan, Daniel Flatley, Laura Curtis, and Mark Niquette, Bloomberg)(Paywall) — In addition to not knowing how the court will rule in the tariffs case, we don’t know when it will rule. Even if the decision comes quickly, businesses and countries affected by Trump’s trade policies “are set for months of uncertainty,” according to Bloomberg. As business leaders wrestle with questions of future costs and potential tariff refunds, foreign policy experts are wondering what the case will mean for geopolitics. “[A] ruling against Trump could … lead [countries] from the EU to Brazil and India now negotiating with Trump to recalibrate their positions.”
- Johnson rips conservative justices after SCOTUS questions Trump tariff powers (Benjamin S. Weiss, Courthouse News Service) — House Speaker Mike Johnson on Thursday addressed some of the questions raised by conservative justices during oral arguments on Trump’s tariffs, contending that Justice Neil Gorsuch, among others, seemed unnecessarily worried “that the Trump administration had trampled on congressional authority,” according to Courthouse News Service. “I don’t find myself in disagreement with Justice Gorsuch too often, but I think he’s missed the mark on this one,” Johnson said.
- Why Was John Mulaney at the Supreme Court? (Alex Weprin, The Hollywood Reporter) — As Mark Walsh noted in his latest View from the Court column, comedian John Mulaney was at the Supreme Court on Wednesday to take in oral arguments on Trump’s tariffs. Walsh pointed to past collaborations between Mulaney and Neal Katyal, who argued on behalf of the small businesses challenging the tariffs, to explain the comedian’s presence, and The Hollywood Reporter has since offered more details on their professional relationship. “Katyal and Mulaney are working on a TV project together. Speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival earlier this year, Katyal revealed some details” about the project. “I’m actually writing a television show about the Supreme Court, it’s kind of a West Wing for the Supreme Court,” he said at the time. “I’m writing with John Mulaney and … it’ll be out in a couple of years.”
A Closer Look: Interim Docket Update
The spotlight was on the Supreme Court’s oral arguments docket this week as the justices returned to the courtroom for the start of the November sitting. But court watchers shouldn’t lose sight of the interim docket, where the court addressed the Trump administration’s passport policy and on which several other high-profile matters are awaiting resolution.
Here’s a brief overview of the most notable pending requests, all of which involve the Trump administration.
Nearly two months ago, the Trump administration asked the court to intervene in its dispute with Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and pause a ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that prevented President Donald Trump from removing her from office. Six days after receiving Cook’s response to that request, the court announced that it was deferring action for now and would hear oral arguments in January on whether to pause the lower court ruling.
Because of that Oct. 1 announcement, we know that the court is not planning to take action in Trump v. Cook until January at the earliest.
In this case, the Supreme Court is considering Trump’s authority to federalize and deploy the National Guard within Illinois. It’s been in front of the justices since Oct. 17, when the administration asked the court to pause a district court order preventing the deployment.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who received the request because she oversees the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, gave the state of Illinois and city of Chicago just three days to respond, a move that seemed to signal the court would act quickly. But on Oct. 29, nine days after receiving that response, the court requested additional briefing.
Both sides have until Monday to file “briefs, not to exceed 15 pages” addressing one aspect of the law on which Trump relied in his Oct. 4 memorandum calling up the National Guard. They will then have until Nov. 17 to respond to the other side’s filing.
On Oct. 27, the Trump administration filed its most recent request for emergency relief from the Supreme Court. It asked the justices to pause a lower court order that temporarily reinstated Shira Perlmutter, the top U.S. copyright official, who was fired earlier this year.
Perlmutter’s response to the administration’s request is due on Monday by 4 p.m. EST.
SCOTUS Quote
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: We’re –we’re back to the –the question here. Okay. Thank you, counsel.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Justice Sotomayor?
JUSTICE KAGAN: No, she’s Justice Sotomayor.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Yeah.
(Laughter.)
— Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
On Site
From Amy Howe
Supreme Court Sides with Trump Administration in Passports Case
The Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon handed the Trump administration another victory on the justices’ interim docket. In a brief, unsigned opinion, the court granted the government’s request to temporarily put on hold rulings by a federal judge in Massachusetts that would have required the State Department to issue passports to transgender and nonbinary Americans that reflect the sex designation of their choosing. “Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth,” the majority said, “no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.” For more on the decision, read Amy’s analysis.
From Kelsey Dallas
Six Significant Cases the Justices Are Deciding Whether to Hear
The justices returned to the courtroom on Monday for the start of the court’s November sitting. Today, they’ll return to their conference room for their first private conference since Oct. 17 and consider several petitions for review awaiting action from the court. For a brief overview of six notable petitions up for consideration over the next two weeks, read Kelsey’s analysis.
Argument Analysis
Richard Cooke on Rico v. United States
The Supreme Court heard argument on Monday in Rico v. United States about whether defendants who flee from their probation officers’ supervision during their term of supervised release (the conditions one must follow after being released from incarceration) can claim that the term of supervision continued and then expired when they were a fugitive. In his argument analysis for SCOTUSblog, Richard Cooke noted that “practical considerations loomed large” during Monday’s debate.
Kelsey Dallas on Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court considered whether it’s possible to run out of time to challenge a judgment that never should have been issued. Specifically, the court was asked to determine if the “reasonable time” standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 applies to judgments that were void “ab initio,” or from the beginning. For more on the oral arguments, read Kelsey’s analysis.
Ronald Mann on The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist
Hain is a case about litigation strategy. The dispute started when a mother (Sarah Palmquist) who lives in Texas believed that toxic metal in baby food had harmed her child. The attorneys that she consulted formulated a lawsuit that would take place in the Texas state courts, reflecting the general view that state courts are more favorable to plaintiffs in this kind of litigation than federal courts (especially in Texas). But The Hain Celestial Group, which manufactures the food, succeeded in having it transferred to a federal court. The Supreme Court is now considering whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit was correct when it said the transfer shouldn’t have taken place and sent the case back to the state courts. “Pretty much everything that was said in the short argument on Tuesday suggests that the Supreme Court is going to agree with the 5th Circuit,” Ronald Mann wrote for SCOTUSblog.
Posted in Featured, Newsletters
Recommended Citation:
Kelsey Dallas,
SCOTUStoday for Friday, November 7,
SCOTUSblog (Nov. 7, 2025, 9:00 AM),
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/scotustoday-for-friday-november-7/
