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.”
