The Gavel: Trump tariffs shadow Supreme Court

The Hill's weekly courts news digest.

By Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld   |   Wednesday, January 14 By Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee Wednesday, January 14 © (AP Photo/Ryan Sun) Trump tariffs shadow Supreme Court Antsy lobbyists and lawyers, a buzzy press corps and the onslaught of news stories about the fate of President Trump's tariffs could lead one to believe it's the Supreme Court's opinion season climax — but it's only the beginning of a long term to come.  As the Supreme Court begins releasing opinions, the trifecta of the financial, political and legal worlds are bracing for a potential game-changing ruling that stands to upend the global market.   The unease is palpable, with the atmosphere feeling more like the court's busy spring season than the typical slow start to opinion announcements in the winter.  The justices are set to release at least one more when they return to the bench Wednesday at 10 a.m. ET.  Let's be clear: the justices have not said they will be releasing the tariffs' decision any time soon.   The court doesn't announce in advance which decisions they're handing down on a particular day, leaving reporters, the public and even the lawyers who argue the cases in the dark.  The anticipation is all speculation.  Normally such a major decision wouldn't be expected until May or June, but the court expedited the tariffs' case so it could be argued in November. That speedy schedule raises the notion the justices may put it out sooner than we'd typically expect.  So when the court announced its first opinion day of the term this past Friday, advocates, PR professionals at law firms and law schools, and economists turned their eyes to One First Street (we've even received multiple press releases definitively proclaiming the court would be releasing the tariffs decision).  As one user put it in a post viewed 1.8 million times, "Tomorrow's SCOTUS rulings will probably result in the wildest 24 hours on X."  Suffice it to say, the one opinion the court handed down involving complicated habeas corpus rules did not achieve that stardom.   Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to get in on the joke as she announced her majority opinion.  "Seeing who's here, it's not the case you thought," she told those gathered in the courtroom.  As the clock keeps ticking, here's a reminder of how fast the court handled some of its recent expedited cases:  TikTok ban: The court heard arguments within 23 days. Following arguments, the decision unanimously upholding the TikTok ban landed seven days later.  Trump's Colorado ballot ban: The court heard arguments within 34 days. Following arguments, the ruling that Colorado couldn't kick Trump off the ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrection ban landed 25 days later.  Presidential immunity: The court heard arguments within 57 days. Following arguments, the decision granting Trump broad criminal immunity landed 67 days later.  The tariff case has now outlasted all three. Wednesday marks 70 days since November's arguments.  Trump, who has long argued the tariffs case is one of the most important in U.S. history, has repeatedly pressured the justices to rule in his favor in regular Truth Social posts since the argument.  Hundreds of companies have meanwhile filed lawsuits in preparation to try to obtain tariff refunds.  The companies range from Costco to Abercrombie & Fitch and SimpliSafe.   Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill's weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Click above to email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48).   Not already on the list? Subscribe here. IN FOCUS Maduro's Florida legal fight; Trump's offshore wind battle; Court security What state charges for Maduro could look like  Nicolás Maduro may be in for another legal fight.   After the toppled Venezuelan leader was captured and transported to New York to face federal narco-terrorism charges, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signaled last week that the state is also weighing charges.   "We're going to look very seriously at that," he said at a press conference.  DeSantis said Maduro was "obviously very involved with drugs," alleging they were brought to Florida, in particular, and that the Venezuelan leader would empty his prisons and send those individuals across the border.   "To me, that is a very hostile act," he continued.   Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier's (R) office would bring the charges. The Gavel reached out with questions, but representatives had no comment. The governor said officials are reviewing the state's statutes and on social media has alluded to the notion that Maduro could face dueling prosecutions.   It wouldn't be without precedent. Florida also brought a parallel case against Ryan Routh, the man convicted on federal charges of attempting to assassinate Trump.  In federal court, Maduro is accused of conspiring with his wife, Venezuelan officials and drug traffickers to import tons of cocaine into the U.S. while promoting other illegal activity to enrich and empower himself and allies.   He pleaded not guilty to the four counts he faces: narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess the weapons.  Neither DeSantis nor Uthmeier have referenced specific charges, but DeSantis noted the state's "robust narcotics statutes."   Florida could bring a count of capital trafficking in cocaine, which could carry the death penalty when 300 kilograms or more of cocaine was transported into Florida with the knowledge that the probable result of such importation would be the death of any person.  The state could also bring more standard drug trafficking, gang-related or money laundering charges.   DeSantis, a former 2024 presidential opponent of Trump's, demurred last week on whether he would have ordered Maduro's seizure if he held the Oval Office but said the issue of Venezuela's independence from its longtime leader is one that's important to him.   "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas, my man — I mean, that's just the nature of it," he said. "No, you go back, I mean this has been an issue in this state that I've been very vocal on for 15 years."  He added that Maduro was not legitimately elected in 2024, which could become a critical piece of any future prosecution.   In the federal case, Maduro is expected to argue that he's immune from criminal prosecution as a sovereign head of state.  "I am a decent man — the president of my country," Maduro told a federal judge last week.  His attorney, Barry Pollack, argued that he's "entitled to the privileges and immunities" that come with that title. But the U.S. doesn't recognize Maduro as Venezuela's president.  We unpacked the immunity defense last week, namely how it was rejected by the courts after the U.S. deposed Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega in 1989.   But Noriega's charges were federal. If Maduro is indicted in Florida, his foreign leader immunity defense will be weighed in state court.   That could change the state of play in ways that are yet to be seen.  Trump's offshore wind purge lands in court  The legal battle over President Trump's efforts to shut down offshore wind projects is heating up.  A federal judge on Monday blocked an stop-work order at the Revolution Wind project, located off the coast of Connecticut and Rhode Island.  U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, an appointee of former President Reagan, sided with the two states and the company constructing the site, who argue the administration's halt violates federal law.  More rulings appear imminent, with two hearings slated for later this week.  Trump has long opposed wind projects and raised the issue while meeting with oil executives and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on Friday.  "I'm not much of a windmill person," Trump said. "I can proudly say, Doug, that we have not approved one windmill since I've been office, and we're gonna keep it that way. My goal is to not let any windmill be built. They're losers."  The legal battle began months ago, but it rapidly intensified after the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on Dec. 22 sent letters to several projects instructing them to halt all work for 90 days.  Federal regulations allow suspensions for national security or defense concerns. The letters point to a Pentagon assessment that the projects will have "direct impacts to national security" heightened by their "sensitive location on the East Coast."  That assessment includes classified information that remains out of public view, though the government has submitted some of it to the courts privately.  At the hearing earlier this week, Revolution Wind noted its project is approximately 87 percent complete.  "The Order ignores that Interior has stated plainly that the Project does not interfere with national security," the company wrote on court filings. "It also ignores Revolution Wind's substantial actions and billions of dollars of investment made in reliance on Defendants' approvals of the Project."  With Revolution Wind securing a preliminary win, the fight on Wednesday turns to New York.  The company constructing the Empire Wind project, which is projected to power 600,000 homes in the state, is set to appear before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, at 10 a.m. ET for an injunction hearing. New York filed a similar lawsuit last week.  And on Friday, it's the mid-Atlantic's turn. Dominion Energy will ask to halt the stop-work order for its 2.6-gigawatt Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project.  That hearing will unfold in Norfolk before U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker, an appointee of former President Biden.  "Dominion makes no showing of irreparable harm concerning Project operations — which, again, implicate national security concerns — before this suit can be litigated on the merits," the Justice Department wrote in court filings Monday.  Bipartisan deal bumps court security  Courts would receive a boost in security under a funding deal struck between congressional spending leaders as threats against the judiciary mount.  The bipartisan fiscal 2026 spending bill proposed this week allots more than $892 million to the federal judiciary for security, an increase of nearly 19% from the previous year's levels.   It's a match to the Administrative Office of the U.S.Courts's request to cushion its coffers for security needs after two years passed without additional funds.   "These funds are necessary to address the substantial increase in threats against federal judges and mitigate the significant underfunding of this account after being held to a hard freeze level for the past two years," the office wrote in its April funding appeal to Congress.  In fiscal 2025, there were 564 threats against judges, after fiscal 2024 saw 509 threats, according to U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) data. Since fiscal 2026 began in October, there have already been 150 threats.    Judges have increasingly spoken out, anonymously in the press and publicly, to confront the assaults on the judiciary.   The additional money will be used for vulnerability management, security infrastructure, USMS staffing support and other security and equipment needs, in addition to maintaining the status quo, the office said in April.   An earlier continuing resolution, which ended the last government shutdown, doled out $28 million for the security of Supreme Court justices.  The security funds are just a piece of the more than $9 billion that would be set aside for the federal judiciary.  The bill also includes $1.766 billion for federal public defenders and Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys, who represent criminal defendants who cannot afford a lawyer — a more than 21% bump in funding that nearly matches the judiciary's request.   In July, the judiciary rang the alarm about a "funding crisis" caused by the early depletion of CJA funds. With fewer CJA panel attorneys being paid, that constitutionally mandated work fell to public defenders, who also went unpaid during the shutdown.   The earlier CR, passed in November, provided a $1.56 billion buffer for the judiciary, which could be used for services including federal defenders and CJA attorneys. After months without pay, those attorneys were reimbursed.   For salaries and other expenses, the bill also gives the Supreme Court an additional $135 million, plus $36.7 million to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, $22.4 million to the U.S. Court of International Trade and $6.127 billion to the rest of the federal judiciary, including appeals and district courts.   SIDEBAR 5 top docket updates Powell-Trump feud deepens: The Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened a probe into the Federal Reserve's ongoing renovation of its headquarters in Washington, D.C., confirmed the central bank's chair, Jerome Powell.  Minnesota ICE shooting fallout: Minnesota officials asked the public to turn over any evidence that may be relevant to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer shooting and killing of a local woman this week, after the FBI iced out state investigators. Then, state and city officials sued the Trump administration over its federal immigration enforcement surge.   Kelly files suit: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) filed a lawsuit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over efforts to censure the senator and lower his retirement rank after he participated in a video calling on service members to reject unlawful orders.   Trump's legal fees fight: Trump asked a Georgia judge to award him $6.26 million in attorney fees and costs he incurred defending against his now-dismissed criminal prosecution in the state.   Jack Smith to testify: House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said he will invite former special counsel Jack Smith to testify publicly about his investigation into Trump.  In other news DOJ takes home the gold: Golden Globes host Nikki Glaser took a crack at the Justice Department over its handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files within moments of taking the stage, joking to the crowd: "There's so many A-listers — and by A-listers, I do mean people who are on a list that has been heavily redacted. And the Golden Globe for best editing goes to: the Justice Department."  Another Supreme jokester: In that vein, Justice Neil Gorsuch landed a wisecrack in the court's first opinion of the term, writing, "Two years ago, in an obscure administrative law case, this Court expressly refused to treat Boechler as a permission slip for creating any manner of new interpretive presumptions that may happen to suit our tastes but that do not 'approximat[e] rea[l]' statutory meaning." The "obscure administrative law case" in question? Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, of course — the 2024 landmark decision overruling the Chevron deference.   Brothers no more: Alpha Sigma Phi filed suit for damages against ex-members at Rutgers due to their involvement in a hazing incident during the Fall 2025 semester, calling it "one of the most significant legal actions taken by a national fraternity."  McRipped off: A new class-action lawsuit accuses McDonald's of misleading customers to believe that its McRib sandwich uses real rib meat, when it allegedly includes none at all.   Halligan claps back: Lindsey Halligan pushed back against a federal judge who accused her of making misrepresentations in a low-profile criminal case by continuing to assert she serves as U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan noted the judge's order contained a factual mistake of its own: it included the defendant's wrong indictment date.  THE ORDER LIST Cases the Supreme Court is taking up — or passing on — this term. In:  FCC's power and Cisco's China sales  The Supreme Court took up five petitions at Friday's closed-door conference, some of the final cases expected to be heard this term.  The justices will examine the Federal Trade Commission's (FCC) power to assess massive fines in FCC v. AT&T and Verizon Communications v. FCC.  It stems from a battle between the regulator and the two phone providers. AT&T paid roughly $57 million, and Verizon paid nearly $47 million after the FCC found they mishandled customers' location data.  The companies argue the FCC's system violates their Seventh Amendment civil jury trial right.  In Cisco Systems v. Doe I, the justices will hear the tech giant's appeal seeking to stave off a lawsuit brought by Chinese nationals who adhere to the Falun Gong spiritual movement.  The suit claims the company aided and abetted human rights abuses against Falun Gong practitioners through its sales to Chinese government agencies. Cisco denies the accusations and contends federal law doesn't allow the suit.  In Bondi v. Lau, the court will hear the Justice Department's attempt to revive a removal order against a Chinese national convicted of trademark infringement. The man was a lawful permanent resident and argues the government mishandled his status when he returned to the U.S. while his criminal prosecution was pending.  And in Sripetch v. SEC, a man who admitted to engaging in illegal, fraudulent schemes involving penny-stock companies is challenging the SEC's ability to award disgorgement without identifying harmed investors.  Out: Hertz appeal  Rental car company Hertz lost its bid to avoid paying more than $270 million to unsecured bondholders in its bankruptcy case. Only Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he would've taken the case, Hertz v. Wells Fargo Bank.  It leaves intact a lower court ruling that Hertz must pay the "make-whole premiums" and additional interest because it became solvent after seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2020.  The decision came after the Trump administration urged the court to turn away Hertz's appeal.  Hertz's stock dropped more than 3 percent Monday. Maybe: Pharmaceutical battle The justices asked for the Trump administration's views on a battle between two pharmaceutical companies, Wells Pharma of Houston v. Zyla Life Sciences.  Zyla sued Wells Pharma over its outsourcing facility that sells a compounded version of Zyla's drug commonly used to treat arthritis.  The case involves whether Zyla can sue under state unfair competition laws or whether it's preempted by a federal drug law.  The justices also asked the Trump administration to weigh in on a second case, General Dynamics v. Sharpf.  General Dynamics and other companies that manufacture the U.S. Navy fleet are seeking to toss a lawsuit accusing them of forming a "gentlemen's agreement" to not recruit each other's employees to drive down wages. The companies say it's barred by the statute of limitations. PETITION PILE Petitions to take up cases that the justices are keeping a close eye on. 'Skinny labels': The justices may weigh the bounds of "skinny labels," which allow manufacturers to bring a generic drug to market faster by carving out the brand-name version's patented use on the label. The case is Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma.  Chabad: Chabad is attempting to retrieve historically significant Jewish books the Soviet Union seized nearly a century ago. The case involves complicated rules for when foreign sovereigns can be sued and turns on the books not being physically in the U.S. The case is Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation.  Employee retirement plans: The court will consider getting involved in lawsuits over alleged mismanagement of employee retirement plans. Both concern whether plaintiffs must provide a "meaningful benchmark." The cases are Parker-Hannifin Corporation v. Johnson and Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee.  Roundup weedkiller lawsuits: The maker of Roundup weedkiller is urging the justices to shield the company from tens of thousands of lawsuits claiming the product causes cancer.  The company says those state-law claims are preempted by federal law. The lead case is Monsanto Company v. Durnell.  Fourth Amendment: Washington, D.C., is appealing in a battle over whether a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment when stopping individuals in an apartment parking lot after receiving a stolen vehicle report. The case involves when courts may exclude certain facts from the analysis. The case is D.C. v. R.W.  Geofence warrants: Geofence warrants allow police to demand companies turn over information on all devices online within a location boundary during a specific time. Two defendants argue they violate the Fourth Amendment. The cases are Chatrie v. United States and Davis v. United States. State secrets privilege: The federal government is back at the Supreme Court in a lawsuit filed by Muslims alleging the FBI improperly surveilled them because of their religion. The government invoked the state secrets privilege and argues it compels the lawsuit's dismissal. The case is FBI v. Fazaga.  Sentencing Commission deference: In 2024, the court limited the deference given to agencies in interpreting ambiguous laws. Now, a defendant argues judges should limit the deference given to the Sentencing Commission's commentary that accompanies federal guidelines, too. The case is Poore v. United States.  Tribal taxes: In a follow-up case to the court's 2020 ruling that the Muscogee Reservation, which spans much of eastern Oklahoma, is Indian country, a woman who lives and works on the reservation is petitioning the court to rule she doesn't have to pay state income tax. The case is Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission.  Filing fees: Two defendants are urging the court to rule that federal law allows incarcerated defendants to split the $350 fee to file a civil lawsuit, and they don't each have to pay it. The case is Johnson v. High Desert State Prison.  ON THE DOCKET Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now:   Today The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over whether NJ Transit has immunity from suits in New York and Pennsylvania because it is part of the New Jersey government. The case is Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation / New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Colt.   A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a hearing over members of Congress's contention that the Trump administration secretly reinstated a policy blocking lawmakers' unannounced oversight of federal immigration detention facilities.  Another D.C. federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing over the Trump administration's suspension of the Empire Wind Project, which would connect New York's energy grid, over national security concerns.   A federal judge in Minnesota is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in the state's lawsuit against the Trump administration for cutting it off from SNAP funding unless it recertifies the eligibility of beneficiaries within 30 days.   A federal judge in California is set to hold a hearing to weigh DHS's bid to unmask an anonymous individual who runs the Facebook and Instagram accounts MontCo Community Watch, which gives reports on ICE enforcement actions. The anonymous user is seeking to quash DHS's subpoena to Meta seeking their identity.  Thursday A federal judge in Florida is set to hold the first hearing in a $100 million lawsuit brought against the Justice Department by five Proud Boys leaders convicted over the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. A federal judge in Massachusetts is set to hold a hearing over whether to postpone the Trump administration's termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for South Sudanese nationals while it's under review in a class-action lawsuit Another Massachusetts federal judge is set to consider university associations' bid for remedies against the Trump administration after the judge found Trump's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists was unlawful.     Friday A federal judge in Virginia is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Trump administration's suspension of the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Commercial Project.  Monday Federal courts will be closed for Martin Luther King Jr. Day.   Tuesday The Supreme Court will announce orders.  The justices will also hear oral arguments in two cases.   The high court will weigh whether Hawaii's default concealed carry ban on private property violates the Second Amendment in Wolford v. Lopez.  The justices will also hear oral arguments in two cases: They will also consider whether actuarial projections made after a statutory deadline can be used to calculate an employer's withdrawal liability from an underfunded multiemployer pension plan so long as the projections were based on data before the deadline. The case is M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund.  A panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit judges are set to hear oral arguments in the government's challenge to the dismissal of an indictment alleging a Roblox gamer issued interstate threats, after a lower judge found the defendant was only "playing a game."  A Washington, D.C., federal judge is set to hear arguments regarding the Trump administration's bid to dismiss five federal employees' challenge to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Elon Musk's access to their personal data.  WHAT WE'RE READING The Atlantic's Paul Rosenzweig: The Court Case That Is Allowing ICE to Stop Just About Anyone It Wants  The New York Times's Charlie Savage: Justice Dept. Memo Approved Military Incursion Into Venezuela as Lawful  WIRED's Jason Parham: Conservative Lawmakers Want Porn Taxes. Critics Say They're Unconstitutional  Bloomberg's Zoe Tillman, Jeannette Neumann and Laura Curtis: More Than 1,000 Companies Are Suing Trump Over His Tariffs  Fox News's Landon Mion: San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action  We'll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here. Questions? Tips? Love letters, hate mail, pet pics? Email us: elee@thehill.com and zschonfeld@thehill.com.  On Signal: @elee.03 and @zachschonfeld.48.  Privacy Policy   |   View in Browser    |   Manage Subscriptions Sign Up for Other Newsletters   |   Unsubscribe  400 N Capitol Street NW Suite 650, Washington, DC 20001 Copyright © 1998 - 2026 Nexstar Media Inc.   |   All Rights Reserved.

If you believe this has been sent to you in error, please safely unsubscribe.