Thanks to everyone who joined yesterday’s LinkedIn Live event to hear SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe and Briefly’s Adam Stofsky discuss the 2025-26 term. The video of the discussion remains available on the event page.

Read more In birthright citizenship dissent, Justice Thomas stakes out an ideological claim of who counts as an American

And in case you missed it, a video of SCOTUSblog Executive Editor Zach Shemtob and ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang’s fireside chat at our term-in-review event is available on YouTube.

At the Court

The court is set to release the first of three summer order lists on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT. (We discussed what these lists typically address in a Closer Look earlier this week.)

Morning Reads

Rebecca Slaughter Doesn’t Want Your Sympathy

Cristian Farias, Vanity Fair

On June 29 in Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court ruled against Rebecca Slaughter in her challenge to President Donald Trump’s decision to remove her from the Federal Trade Commission, holding that the president has broad authority to remove the heads of independent agencies that wield executive power. In an interview with Vanity Fair, Slaughter discussed how it felt to be the face of a Supreme Court case – describing it as “not fun” – and her reaction to the court’s ruling, contending that Chief Justice John Roberts “relished the opportunity” to overturn the “precedent protecting independent agencies.” “[T]here was nothing we could have done,” Slaughter said. “And in a way, that was sort of a relief, because I didn’t have to second-guess some of the strategic decisions that we made along the way.” She added that, when it comes to determining her next job, she is still “figuring that out.”

In Fairbanks, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says work ethic and determination propelled her to nation’s highest court

Iris Samuels, Anchorage Daily News

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared at the University of Alaska Fairbanks on Tuesday to discuss her memoir, Lovely One, and answer questions about her work on the Supreme Court. She “explored themes from her memoir, including growing up in Miami, her experience on her public high school’s speech and debate team, meeting her husband at Harvard University, and the challenges of balancing the demands of her career and parenthood,” according to the Anchorage Daily News. She also repeated her past criticism of the court’s emergency docket, arguing that the lack of “a full opinion” in most emergency docket cases “is problematic for the public.” About 50 minutes into the event, organizers “abruptly ended it, saying that Jackson was called away urgently but providing no further explanation.”

Trump hits Brazil with new tariffs in sign of what’s ahead

David J. Lynch, The Washington Post

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump revealed “a 25 percent tariff on goods from Brazil … the latest step in rebuilding U.S. trade barriers following the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that invalidated his first try at erecting a shield around the economy,” according to The Washington Post. “The president’s trade chief, Jamieson Greer, recommended the move after a year-long investigation concluded Brazil had engaged in several ‘unfair’ trade practices,” saying that “Brazil’s digital trade and electronic payment systems, preferential tariffs, ethanol market, intellectual property protection and illegal deforestation all had hurt U.S. companies.” “The administration announced the tariff after 11 p.m. Wednesday. More tariffs are expected later this month, as the president employs Section 301 of a 1974 trade law to target dozens of U.S. trading partners.”

Could a 50-Year-Old Case Thwart Trump’s Attacks on the News Media?

Adam Liptak, The New York Times

In his newsletter for The New York Times, Adam Liptak explored Branzburg v. Hayes, a 1972 case in which the Supreme Court held, by a vote of 5-4, “that the journalists in that case could not protect their confidential sources and had to tell grand juries what they had learned while reporting on the manufacturing of illegal drugs and on the activities of the Black Panthers.” The decision is back in the spotlight as the Trump administration pursues “aggressive efforts to compel journalists to reveal their sources.”

Ava DuVernay announces ‘14th’ documentary on birthright amendment contested by Trump

Jake Coyle, Associated Press

First, the Supreme Court. Now, Hollywood. After a term in which the justices wrestled with multiple aspects of the 14th Amendment, the amendment is getting the documentary treatment from a prominent director. “Ava DuVernay announced Thursday that she has made a documentary for Netflix on the 14th Amendment, which gave liberty and rights to formerly enslaved people following the Civil War,” according to the Associated Press. The court cited the 14th Amendment in striking down President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, and the president has since “vowed to continue to contest the Supreme Court’s ruling.” “DuVernay said her film will detail how the 14th Amendment became ‘a permanent argument.’ It will feature politicians, historians and cultural voices.”

On Site

SCOTUS Focus

The public’s view of the Supreme Court

By Charles Franklin

In an analysis for SCOTUSblog, Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School Poll, explored “the public’s opinion of” several significant cases. “Based on our polling, which was conducted in April and May, the public concurred in part and dissented in part with the outcomes of the Supreme Court’s major decisions this term,” Franklin wrote.

SCOTUS Outside Opinions

The administrative agency cases were not the court’s only significant separation of powers decisions this term

By Kevin Trowel

In a column for SCOTUSblog, Kevin Trowel revisited two cases in which the court addressed separation of powers issues that were not nearly as high-profile as cases on the president’s authority to remove federal officials. “Although Rutherford and Fernandez may have garnered” less attention, “they place substantial – and welcome – limitations on federal courts’ authority to undermine congressional judgments in the area of criminal law,” Trowel wrote.

Podcasts

Advisory Opinions

A Bucket Full of Trump Bait

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Elena Kagan’s testimony in front of Congress, an Alaska Airlines forum argument about religious issues, and President Donald Trump’s various legal battles – from the War Powers Resolution to sanctioned lawyers to law firm subpoenas.

Amarica’s Constitution

Dissenting from the Dissents

Why was the vote in Trump v. Barbara as close as it was? Many were bewildered by it, given the strength of the arguments in Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion, the long history of birthright citizenship, the statutory history, and the clear text of the 14th Amendment. Akhil Amar and Andy Lipka try to understand this by digging into the dissents.

Read more Three profound constitutional provisions – and how the Supreme Court has avoided dealing with them

A Closer Look

Justice John Blair, Jr.

Justice John Blair, Jr. may be the least remembered of the Supreme Court’s inaugural bench. This is not to say, however, that he was a man without some remarkable accomplishments: Blair signed the Constitution, helped secure its ratification in his home state of Virginia, and spent six years on the first Supreme Court helping establish what the founding document meant in practice.

Blair was born in Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1732 into “one of Virginia’s most prominent families”; his father served as Virginia’s acting governor on four occasions, and his great-uncle, James Blair, founded the College of William and Mary and was its first president. John graduated with honors from that school in 1754 before heading to the Middle Temple in London for legal training. In 1756, he married his cousin Jean Blair in Scotland.

Once back home, Blair found Patrick Henry’s response to the British government’s Stamp Act of 1765 (which taxed the colonists by requiring stamps on printed materials) too radical and opposed Henry’s resolutions attacking Parliament’s authority. However, Blair later joined the 1770 boycott pledge against British imports and backed the 1774 call for a Continental Congress. At Virginia’s 1776 convention he served on the committee that produced the state’s declaration of rights, then rose through the state’s new judiciary (becoming a General Court judge in 1777 and its chief judge by 1779, and later serving on the First Virginia Court of Appeals). In 1782’s Commonwealth v. Caton, that court asserted the power to strike legislation that was unconstitutional – though how Blair himself viewed judicial review is disputed, with Edmund Pendleton’s notes suggesting that “[he] took no position on the issue.” Less ambiguously, Blair signed the judges’ 1788 “Remonstrance” declaring that a statute putting new duties on the bench unconstitutionally infringed upon judicial independence.

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, fellow delegate William Pierce reportedly judged Blair a weak public speaker (but with “a very extensive knowledge of the Laws”). Blair may have shared Pierce’s assessment of his public speaking abilities, as he stayed off the floor at the Convention. Blair believed that Congress should choose the president but changed his vote once he realized he was dividing Virginia’s delegation against the preferences of Washington and James Madison.

On Sept. 24, 1789, the same day that he signed the Judiciary Act, Washington nominated Blair to the newly established Supreme Court, and the Senate confirmed him by a voice vote two days later. Blair was reportedly not expecting the position and admitted to Washington that he “could not but entertain some fears.” He took the oath on Feb. 2, 1790, one day late (travel troubles had delayed the court’s first sitting).

The court’s early docket was sparse – Oyez counts just 13 cases across his tenure – but circuit riding kept the justices busy, given they were sometimes on the road for 19 hours in a single day. In Blair’s circuit work, he helped rule in 1792’s Collet v. Collet, which held that states had “concurrent authority” (along with Congress) to naturalize citizens, so long as the states did not violate federal naturalization rules (e.g., by refusing to recognize a federally naturalized citizen). His defining opinion on the Supreme Court came in 1793’s Chisholm v. Georgia. The dispute arose when Alexander Chisholm, a South Carolina merchant acting as executor of an estate, sought payment from the state of Georgia and, unable to obtain relief, invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over cases involving it. Georgia denounced the proceedings as “unconstitutional and extrajudicial,” insisting a sovereign state could not be hauled into court by a private citizen of another state. Four justices ruled against Georgia, including Blair.

Blair issued his opinion seriatim (separately) per the era’s custom. In this, he “demonstrated his belief in the Constitution as the supreme legal authority in the nation and strengthened the federal government’s power over the states,” writing that “[t]he constitution of the United States is the only fountain from which I shall draw.” That said, Chisholm was functionally overturned shortly after by the 11th Amendment, which limited the federal courts’ power to hear lawsuits brought against states by foreign citizens and citizens of other states.

Blair’s wife died in November 1792, and his own frequent illnesses kept him from many sessions. Bothered by what he called “a rattling, distracting noise” in his head (possibly tinnitus), he resigned in late October 1795. Justice Samuel Chase would take his seat on the court. Blair died in Williamsburg in August 1800 and rests by Bruton Parish Church. Eulogists praised “his mildness, gravity, and piety.”

SCOTUS Quote

Ms. Kendall: “The requirement is that termination must be by clear and express language of congressional intent, and that’s not what you find in ANCSA [Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act].”

Justice Scalia: “It doesn’t need to be there, but one would expect to find it there.”

Read more The administrative agency cases were not the court’s only significant separation of powers decisions this term

Ms. Kendall: “Let me ask you, Your Honor –”

Chief Justice Rehnquist: “Ms. Kendall, you don’t ask questions of the Court.”

Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (1997)

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *