SCOTUStoday for Monday, October 13

Former President Herbert Hoover laid the cornerstone of the Supreme Court Building 93 years ago, on Oct. 13, 1932. Former Justice Anthony Kennedy recently wrote for The New York Times about his research into the building, including the source of the phrase “Equal justice under law,” which is engraved over the building’s front entrance: “Research led to the correspondence file of Charles Evans Hughes, who was the chief justice at the time the building was near completion. My conclusion from the file with letters between him and those involved in construction was that the architects made up the phrase. They did so because the length of the phrase was the right size for the pediment.”

Morning Reads

• Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders (Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague, The New York Times) — The New York Times surveyed federal judges about how “the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration” is affecting their work. “Sixty-five judges responded to a Times questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office.” The judges, who were not named, used phrases like “overly blunt” and “incredibly demoralizing and troubling” to describe emergency docket orders. “Forty-two judges went so far as to say that the Supreme Court’s emergency orders had caused ‘some’ or ‘major’ harm to the public’s perception of the judiciary.”
• Higher Ed Will Likely Be a Key Topic for SCOTUS. Which Cases Will Make the Cut? (Jessica Blake, Inside Higher Ed) — Higher education officials are following the Supreme Court’s 2025-26 term closely, and it’s not just because the justices will hear two cases on transgender athletes that could affect collegiate sports and other areas of campus life, according to Inside Higher Ed. In recent months, shadow docket decisions on staffing cuts at the Department of Education and research funding have held significant consequences for colleges and universities, and academic leaders are watching out for similar rulings in the months ahead. “I suspect that we will see First Amendment challenges make their way to the court [on the shadow docket] related to ongoing efforts by the administration to force changes across universities and use threats of cutting off funding to compel those changes,” said Jessica Ellsworth, a partner at Hogan Lovells and adviser for the American Council on Education, to Inside Higher Ed.
• US Supreme Court asked to hear dispute over copyrights for AI creations (Blake Brittain, Reuters) — The justices have been asked to consider whether “a work of art generated by artificial intelligence [can] be copyrighted under U.S. law,” according to Reuters. The U.S. Copyright Office, a federal district judge in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit all have said human authorship is a requirement for a copyright, rejecting computer scientist Stephen Thaler’s request for a copyright for a “piece of visual art he said his AI system ‘DABUS’ created,” called “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” “Thaler told the justices that the U.S. Copyright Office’s decision denying copyright protection for the art made by his AI system ‘created a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively’ and ‘defies the constitutional goals from which Congress was empowered to create copyright.’”
• Trump ally appeals contempt of Congress case to Supreme Court (Michael Macagnone, Roll Call) — Political strategist and podcast host Steve Bannon has “asked the Supreme Court to overturn his contempt of Congress conviction for refusing to testify before the House select panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol,” according to Roll Call. “In a petition, Bannon’s attorneys urge the justices to decide two issues that he has pressed in his defense — whether the government must prove a defendant knew his conduct was unlawful” (Bannon contends that he “relied in good faith” on advice from an attorney who said he did not have to testify) and “whether the composition of the Jan. 6 panel affected its authority to issue subpoenas.” Bannon “served as CEO of Trump’s election campaign in 2016 before serving as a senior counselor at the White House for several months.”
• Got a Letter from the Supreme Court? It’s a Scam (Robert Powell, TheStreet) — If you receive a letter on Supreme Court letterhead signed by Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Sonia Sotomayor, you should proceed cautiously, according to TheStreet. The Social Security Administration recently issued a warning about such letters, which come from scammers hoping to pressure you into sending them money. “The letter says your Social Security number has been compromised. That the DEA (which they incorrectly call the ‘Drug Enforcement Agency’) is involved. That the Supreme Court has ordered your bank accounts frozen. That you can’t keep more than $10,000 in any bank or $80,000-$100,000 in investments. Then comes the threat: cooperate with the Treasury Department or face ‘full liability’ for losses when your Social Security number gets suspended.”

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• On Friday, the justices announced that they will hear argument in Hunter v. United States, a criminal case about the right to appeal.
• The Supreme Court Building is closed today for Columbus Day.
• An order list outlining some of what was decided at the justices’ private conference on Friday is expected tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. EDT.
• Also tomorrow, the justices will hear argument in Bowe v. United States, on second or successive motions to vacate a sentence, and Ellingburg v. United States, on whether an order for restitution in a criminal case under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.
• On Wednesday, the court will hear argument in Louisiana v. Callais, on race-based redistricting and the Voting Rights Act, and Case v. Montana, on whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring.

A Closer Look: Term Preview at the SCOTUSblog Summit

The SCOTUSblog Summit at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center on Sept. 25 began with a panel on the most pressing issues facing the Supreme Court today, including the need to clarify the scope of presidential authority and the role of race in congressional redistricting, both of which will be addressed in the 2025-26 term.

Panelists Justin Driver of Yale Law School, Daniel Epps of Washington University School of Law, Daniel Harawa of New York University School of Law, and Carolyn Shapiro of the Chicago-Kent College of Law generally were critical of the court’s recent decisions on the interim docket, contending that the justices should do more to help lower courts understand and apply the court’s often-opaque orders. As it stands, some justices seem to be more frustrated with lower court judges supposedly not following their rulings than they are with the Trump administration, which has only increased pressure on the federal judiciary, panelists said.

When the panelists were asked by moderator Jodi Kantor of The New York Times to reflect on the court’s relationship with the Trump administration, they were divided on whether the court felt pressured by the president. “Frankly, I feel like we’ve seen a lot less from the court in terms of pushback on this administration than you might think given some of the positions the administration is taking and some of the ways … the administration is really veering I think very close to line of defying the judiciary, which is something normally the Supreme Court is very concerned about,” Epps said.

The panelists also said it was notable that, as a result of the administration’s many interim docket filings, the court’s summer recess involved much more work than normal. This may lead to a more contentious term, since, according to Driver, justices benefit from taking time away from each other and their work.

The video of the full panel is now available on YouTube for SCOTUSblog readers who weren’t able to attend the summit in person.

SCOTUS Quote

“The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare, nor should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven for reform movements.”

— Justice John Marshall Harlan II in Reynolds v. Sims

On Site

From Amy Howe

Court Grants Case on Right to Appeal

As noted above, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon added another case to its oral argument docket for the 2025-26 term. The justices agreed to take up the case of Munson Hunter, a Texas man who pleaded guilty in 2024 to aiding and abetting wire fraud. The court will weigh in on issues relating to Hunter’s waiver, as part of his plea agreement, of his right to appeal. For more on the case, read Amy’s analysis.

Relist Watch

The Justices Return — And So Do the Relists

The Supreme Court is back in session, and John Elwood’s Relist Watch column is back on SCOTUSblog. Elwood explored the 17 cases that were relisted after the “long conference” on Sept. 29 for further consideration at the justices’ private conference on Friday. They deal with a wide range of issues, such as religious exemptions to vaccine mandates, whether certain stem cell treatments should be regulated by the FDA as drugs, and the scope of qualified immunity for police officers facing misconduct claims.

Case Previews

Amy Howe on Louisiana v. Callais

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, a challenge to the congressional map that Louisiana adopted in 2024 that may reshape the Voting Rights Act. It is the second go-round at the court for this dispute in less than a year; the justices heard arguments in the case for the first time in March, but didn’t decide it during their 2024-25 term. To understand the significance of the case, read Amy’s explainer on its long and complicated history.

Amy Howe on Case v. Montana

The Fourth Amendment generally requires police officers to obtain a warrant before they enter a home. But the Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to that rule for emergencies. On Wednesday, in Case v. Montana, the justices will consider how certain police must be that there is an emergency before they can enter a home without a warrant. Is it enough, as the Montana Supreme Court held, that police have only “reasonable suspicion” that there is an emergency? Or are police officers required to meet a higher bar and have probable cause? Amy previewed the case for SCOTUSblog.

Richard Cooke on Bowe v. United States

The court will re-enter the complex world of habeas on Tuesday in the case of Bowe v. United States. After taking part in a robbery in 2008, Michael Bowe pleaded guilty in federal court to three counts – conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery (robbery affecting interstate commerce), attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and a firearm offense, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Bowe was sentenced to 24 years in prison but has been working to get that sentence reduced since 2016. The Supreme Court is considering whether he has already exhausted his options for seeking habeas relief, as Richard Cooke wrote in his case preview.