President Donald Trump celebrated the news that Justice Samuel Alito will be back for the Supreme Court’s 2026-27 term in a Monday night Truth Social post. “Great news for our Country!,” Trump wrote. Alito “is one of the Greatest of All Time. We are all lucky!”
At the Court
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court released its calendar for the November argument session, which lasts from Monday, Nov. 2, to Tuesday, Nov. 10. For more on the oral arguments in November, see the On Site section below.
On July 27, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on its emergency docket to clear the way for the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting. Twelve states – led by Alabama – later echoed this request in their own application. Last week, the group of 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order urged the court to deny these requests. The matter is now fully briefed, and the court’s ruling could come at any time.
The court is set to release the second of three summer order lists on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT. (We discussed what these lists typically address in our July 13 newsletter.)
Morning Reads
Trump refuses to back down as Supreme Court blocks major policies
Julian Mark, The Washington Post (paywalled)
In the six weeks since the Supreme Court handed down its final ruling for the 2025-26 term, “President Donald Trump has made it clear that he will not take Supreme Court decisions as the final word on some of his most cherished priorities,” according to The Washington Post. “The president has introduced new tariffs, renewed efforts to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and issued new executive orders to limit birthright citizenship. While experts said the moves do not signal outright defiance of the high court, they nonetheless push the limits of the rulings that Trump lost earlier this summer.” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis told the Post that “[a]ll actions taken by the president since the recent Supreme Court rulings are consistent with the holdings and analysis set forth by the court.”
Government fights trade judge’s order for tariff refunds to all importers
Mae Anderson, Associated Press
In June, the federal government appealed an order from Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging his conclusion that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol must “issue refunds to all companies that paid tariffs that were deemed illegal in February, even those that didn’t file a lawsuit in trade court.” On Monday, the government filed its opening brief with the Federal Circuit, in which it asserted that Eaton has run afoul of a 2025 Supreme Court ruling limiting “the use of universal injunctions, which apply a ruling to all people or companies affected, not just specific litigants,” according to the Associated Press. “The CIT’s universal injunctions, requiring the government to refund IEEPA duties for all importers (including non-party importers), cannot possibly be squared with” that 2025 ruling, the brief said.
Women's-only spa takes fight over transgender access to the Supreme Court
Michelle Esteban, KOMO News
On Monday, Olympus Spa in Washington state asked the Supreme Court to take up a case on its challenged policy on transgender access, which states “that transgender women are welcome, but not if they are preoperative or have male anatomy,” according to KOMO News. The spa is appealing a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which held that the policy violated a state law outlawing “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, defined as including gender expression or identity” and that enforcement of the law against the spa did not violate the business’ First Amendment rights. “We’re asking the Supreme Court to review this case on behalf of the Olympus Spa and to hold that a spa that has an all-nude female clientele does not have to allow a male into its nude sauna area simply because he identifies as a woman,” said John Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the spa, to KOMO News.
William Howard Taft by John G. Roberts, Jr.
John G. Roberts, Jr., In Pursuit
In an essay on William Howard Taft for In Pursuit, a series on American presidents and select First Ladies, Chief Justice John Roberts reflected on how Taft responded to his failed reelection bid in the 1912 presidential election and the opportunity to lead the Supreme Court, contending that “Chief Justice Taft achieved the success that eluded President Taft.” “As Chief Justice of the United States, he embarked on a series of ambitious projects that enhanced the authority and prestige of the Court and the Branch,” including launching the precursor to the policymaking body for the federal judiciary and “leveraging his contacts on Capitol Hill” to get the funding the court needed to construct its own building. “Despite a relatively short tenure of less than nine years, Taft became one of the most consequential Chief Justices in our Nation’s history,” Roberts wrote.
Why didn't Justice Alito retire?
Noah Feldman
In a post for his Substack, Noah Feldman explored what may have compelled Justice Samuel Alito to delay retirement against the wishes of at least some conservatives. According to Feldman, Alito has spent most of his life, including most of his time on the Supreme Court, feeling “like an outsider.” “He was so conservative that even a fairly conservative Supreme Court was not prepared to rule in the direction that he wanted to go.” But once Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court in 2020 and its balance of power shifted 6-3 in favor of justices appointed by Republicans, Alito moved to “the center of power” and has more control over rulings. “Now he’s the star, and he is not about to give that up,” Feldman argued.
On Site
Court News
Challenge brought to Trump’s new birthright citizenship order
Just five days after President Donald Trump signed a new executive order that seeks to narrow the availability of birthright citizenship, lawyers for the plaintiffs who successfully challenged Trump’s earlier order restricting birthright citizenship returned to federal court in New Hampshire. In a motion filed on Tuesday morning, lawyers from the ACLU and other civil rights groups urged U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante to clarify that the new order goes beyond the limited exception – for foreign diplomats – to birthright citizenship that the Supreme Court reaffirmed in its June 30 decision in Trump v. Barbara.
Court News
Court announces cases it will hear in November, including religious discrimination dispute
The court will hear oral arguments in November in disputes over (among other issues) a Catholic preschool’s challenge to its exclusion from a Colorado preschool program and an inmate’s ability to sue a federal prison official for violating his constitutional rights. The calendar for the justices’ November argument session indicates that the justices will hear seven hours of oral arguments over five days in November, beginning on Nov. 2 and concluding on Nov. 10.
Contributor Corner
Weakening the protection against sex discrimination?
In his Courtly Observations column, Erwin Chemerinsky revisited West Virginia v. B.P.J., in which the court upheld “a West Virginia law prohibiting transgender girls and women from participating in sports corresponding to their gender identity.” Chemerinsky contended that the ruling could hold significant implications for the issue of sex discrimination more broadly.
SCOTUS Outside Opinions
The court should hold oral argument outside of the capital
For his series on what the Supreme Court can do better, Josh Blackman wrote about why “the justices should take their show on the road,” holding “oral arguments at different courthouses throughout the country.” According to Blackman, “[t]he people outside the capital district should see how the court functions.”
Podcasts
Advisory Opinions
SCOTUS’s October Preview
David Lat takes over the host’s chair and is joined by SCOTUSblog’s Zachary Shemtob and Amy Howe to discuss Justice Samuel Alito’s retirement plans (not yet), President Donald Trump’s new executive order targeting birthright citizenship, and hot cases in the upcoming October term.
A Closer Look
The Justices’ Favorite Films
The justices are famously guarded in offering personal details. So when a justice volunteers a movie preference, it tends to stand out.
Chief Justice John Roberts, surprisingly, has perhaps had the most to say here – though not exactly by choice. During his 2005 confirmation hearing, Roberts responded to a frustrated Sen. Chuck Schumer, who said that the confirmation hearing process is “getting a little more absurd every time,” given nominees’ refusal to give any substantive answers. He continued: “It is as if I asked you what kind of movies you like. Tell me two or three good movies. And you say, I like movies with good acting. I like movies with good directing. I like movies with good cinematography. And I ask you, no, give me an example of a good movie. You don’t name one.”
After being interrupted by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter calling for a 15-minute break, Roberts dryly replied: “First, ‘Dr. Zhivago’ and ‘North by Northwest.’’’ Roberts again named “Dr. Zhivago” during a 2009 judicial conference in West Virginia, with one outlet writing that “Roberts went on and on, waxing lyrical in a very good imitation of a USC film school grad.” And in a 2012 lecture at Rice University, Roberts briefly mentioned the legal drama “12 Angry Men”: “I watched it a little while ago again with my young children. I think it’s extraordinarily inspirational; it tells you a lot about American justice.”
In 2009, Justice Clarence Thomas said that he frequently watches “Saving Private Ryan” at home, although he noted that “I can’t tell you why that particular movie, except we have it and it’s about something important in our lives – World War II.”
At a January 2019 forum at the Kennedy Center, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that, when she was 13, she was “captivated” by “West Side Story” – the 1961 film set in the Puerto Rican community of her native New York (and specifically its songs “I Feel Pretty” and “Maria”). On the other hand, the most junior justice on the court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, has said she is “not as big a movie person” and prefers theater. “I like plays that have historical resonance,” Jackson said. “I talk about one in particular [in my book], ‘American Prophet’ … I brought my law clerks to see it.”
The final few justices’ picks are ones that Sarah mentioned in her book, Last Branch Standing. Apparently, Justice Samuel Alito’s favorite movie is “Being There.” (He has a poster for it hanging in his chambers.) Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sarah writes, “loves movies about sports like ‘Hoosiers,’ ‘Miracle,’ and ‘Rocky.’” And Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s “binge movie” is “Meet the Parents,” although by way of TV shows she is also a “Slow Horses” fan, as is Justice Elena Kagan. Kagan, for her part, was quoted in 2015 as being a fan of comic books and named “The Avengers” as her favorite movie. (When asked whether she was “Team Edward” or “Team Jacob” in a reference to the “Twilight” films during her confirmation hearing, she did not answer, saying “I wish you wouldn’t [ask]”).
Justice Neil Gorsuch doesn’t have a comparable public record of stated film preferences, although he has referenced a few; while working in a small area for a trial that was out of town, Gorsuch called the spot “Das Boot,” after the 1981 German submarine film, and said being a student at Oxford was like “a Harry Potter movie.”
And although he’s no longer on the court, we’d be remiss not to mention Antonin Scalia’s love of the 1992 movie “My Cousin Vinnie” (which he once referred to as “my Uncle Vinnie” during an oral argument). Scalia stated that he could watch the film “over and over again” and remarked “God, she’s a killer” of the character played by Marisa Tomei.
SCOTUS Quote
MS. MARGOLIN: “… But after all Congress has 400 to 500 people that they have to get into agreement on – on language. And the court has just nine …”
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: “But it has –”
JUSTICE BLACK: “That's – that's enough.”
MS. MARGOLIN: “Which is enough –”
— Steiner v. Mitchell (1955)
the-new-birthright-citizenship-battle
