The Gavel: Supreme Court decision guide

The Hill's weekly courts news digest.

By Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld   |   Wednesday, May 13 By Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee Wednesday, May 13 © Associated Press, J. Scott Applewhite Supreme Court decision guide Supreme Court decision season is here.  President Trump’s firings of officials long considered independent. His birthright citizenship restrictions. Transgender athlete bans. Guns. Campaign finance rules.  It’s a packed docket.  At least one of the 35 remaining argued cases is expected to be decided on Thursday at 10 a.m. EDT, when the justices will take the bench to unofficially kick off the end-of-spring dash.   If historical trends hold, Thursday opinion drops will become a weekly cadence, with additional days typically added in the final weeks as the justices aim to finish their work by the end of June.   Here’s what to expect.  -- INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Case name: Trump v. Slaughter  Question: Can the president fire independent agency leaders without cause?  Why it matters: The independence of independent agencies is on the line, along with a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent. Rebecca Slaughter, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member, challenged Trump’s decision to fire her without cause. She’s one of a dozen officials removed by Trump despite federal law providing them for-cause removal protections, prompting several legal challenges asserting that independent agency leaders should not be subject to the whims of the White House. Lower courts largely ruled against Trump, finding they are still bound by the 1935 Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. But the justices have the authority to overturn the high court’s own precedents.  Case name: Trump v. Cook  Question: Can Trump fire the Federal Reserve's Lisa Cook as her legal challenge proceeds?  Why it matters: The justices have so far signaled that the Fed stands apart from other independent agencies, but Cook’s case may test those limitations. Trump fired Cook after the Federal Housing Finance Agency accused her of mortgage fraud, which she denies. She has conversely claimed that her termination was tied to the Fed’s failure to lower interest rates at the speed at which Trump desired. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 permits the president to remove Fed governors “for cause” but it doesn’t explicitly define “cause.” The case now turns on how the justices interpret it.   -- IMMIGRATION Case name: Trump v. Barbara  Question: Are Trump’s birthright citizenship restrictions constitutional?  Why it matters: At stake is one of Trump’s Day 1 immigration policies. His executive order would limit birthright citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil to at least one parent with permanent legal status. Opponents say it violates the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee, and a federal law defining citizenship Congress passed decades later.  Case name: Mullin v. Doe/Trump v. Miot  Question: Can the Trump administration terminate countries from the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program?  Why it matters: The decision will dictate if Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can strip temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of noncitizens. TPS provides nationals from designated countries experiencing armed conflict or natural disasters with deportation protections and a work authorization pathway. Contending the Biden administration abused the program, Trump’s DHS has sought to end most of the 17 countries’ participation, insisting judges have no authority to intervene.  -- ELECTIONS Case name: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission  Question: Do federal limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment?  Why it matters: A landmark 2001 Supreme Court decision on campaign finance could be no more. At the heart of the case is whether federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and their candidates violate the First Amendment’s free speech protections, as Vice President J.D. Vance, who brought the challenge as a senator, and the other Republican challengers contend. Defenders of the limits say they help prevent corruption.   Case name: Watson v. Republican National Committee  Question: Can states accept mail ballots that arrive after Election Day?  Why it matters: Midterms are coming up, and changes to the rules surrounding mail-in ballots could have major implications for the 2026 contests. The justices are weighing the legality of Mississippi’s statute allowing a five-day grace period for ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward, and more than a dozen states have similar laws. The Republican National Committee and Libertarian Party of Mississippi contend that federal election law sets out just one Election Day: the first Tuesday in November.   -- TRANSGENDER ATHLETE BANS Case names: Little v. Hecox/ West Virginia v. B. P. J.  Question: Can states bar transgender girls from competing on girls’ and women’s school sports teams?  Why it matters: It’s set to be one of the court’s biggest decisions on transgender protections. The decision will dictate the future of Republican-led efforts in 27 states to ban transgender athletes from girls’ school sports teams. The laws have sparked challenges from transgender athletes who claim they violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee and Title IX, the landmark law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools.  The justices are specifically considering laws in Idaho and West Virginia.   -- GUNS Case name: United States v. Hemani  Question: Does the federal crime for unlawful drug users possessing a firearm violate the Second Amendment?  Why it matters: It will further clarify the bounds of the conservative majority’s expanded Second Amendment test, which requires a historical analogue to justify modern gun control measures. It has led many laws to fall. However, lower courts have split on the federal crime for an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance possessing a firearm. Ali Hemani, a marijuana user, challenges his conviction. The justices could rule narrowly on Hemani’s circumstances and leave the crime largely intact.  Case name: Wolford v. Lopez  Question: Does Hawaii's default concealed carry ban on private property violate the Second Amendment?  Why it matters: It will decide the future of gun laws in several blue states while also providing more clarity on the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment test. Hawaii bans gun permitholders from carrying on private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission. It effectively creates a default gun ban at retail stores, restaurants, private parks and more without a posted sign or explicit verbal permission. The Trump administration and gun rights groups say it wrongly narrows the universe of places where the Second Amendment’s protections apply.  -- OTHERS TO WATCH Case name: Hamm v. Smith  Question: How do multiple IQ scores factor into whether someone is eligible for the death penalty?  Why it matters: The decision could make it harder for convicted killers to avoid execution if their IQ falls short of certain standards. It also may determine if Joseph Clifton Smith, convicted of a 1997 murder, is eligible to be executed. The justices are grappling with where the line should be drawn on intellectual disability when the death penalty is on the table, a question that came to them in Alabama’s appeal of lower court rulings tossing out Smith’s capital murder conviction.  Case name: Chatrie v.  United States  Question: Do geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment?  Why it matters: The decision could limit how law enforcement investigates crimes in the digital age. The justices are weighing whether the government violated a man’s Fourth Amendment rights when it used a geofence warrant during a bank robbery investigation to identify him. The tool, which compels tech companies to disclose data from customers’ devices at a specific place and time, is typically employed when investigators know the time and location of a crime, but not a suspect’s identity.  Case name: Monsanto Company v. Durnell  Question: Does federal law preempt lawsuits alleging Roundup weedkiller causes cancer?  Why it matters: The decision could sway thousands of damages lawsuits launched over allegations that Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. Monsanto argues it doesn’t have to answer those state-level claims that it failed to warn consumers, because the federal government approved labeling for Roundup without a cancer warning. The company says it preempts the state-level lawsuits, a position supported by the Trump administration.    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 Neal Katyal and co-counsel; Virginia Dems ponder next move Katyal's TED Talk turmoil  Veteran Supreme Court advocate Neal Katyal’s new TED Talk recounting his journey defeating Trump’s tariffs has caused a stir.  The centerpiece was Katyal’s revelation that he used AI to prepare for the blockbuster oral argument, which itself has gotten attention.   But before he got to that, a moment near the start of his speech raised eyebrows.  “Three weeks before that argument, one of my own teammates decided to try and take me down so that he could argue the case,” Katyal recounted. “He campaigned, he lobbied, he made calls.”  It’s an apparent reference to Michael McConnell, Katyal’s co-counsel on the case.  The two men joined forces to battle Trump’s tariffs, but they brought contrasting political histories. Katyal represented the Obama administration before the Supreme Court. McConnell was nominated by a Republican president to an appeals judgeship before returning to private practice.   In his TED Talk, Katyal went on to say that The Washington Post’s Jason Willick “somehow” ran a column suggesting it may be a mistake for Katyal to get the nod over McConnell.  “I read it over breakfast. Look, I don't begrudge the guy. I mean, whatever,” Katyal said, eliciting laughter. “I had more important things to do because I wasn't replaced.”  In a statement to The Gavel, McConnell said he considers deliberations within a legal team over their division of responsibilities to be “confidential.”  “So I will not be commenting on that,” he said. “It is a matter of public record, however, that I was Counsel of Record in the case, and thus responsible for its overall strategy and direction. The team, which also included my Wilson Sonsini colleagues and Professor Ilya Somin, were involved every step of the way. I am proud of the work we all did. That is all I can say.”  Katyal’s veiled shot drew criticism from conservative legal commentators.  “The way Katyal publicly airs the dirty laundry with Prof McConnell is astonishing. (I also highly doubt Katyal’s version is accurate.),” wrote University of Minnesota law professor Ilan Wurman.  The Dispatch’s Sarah Isgur wrote on X, “From anonymous member of the Supreme Court bar: ‘I hope Neal knows he just announced his retirement in the form of a Ted talk bc he can never appear in front of the Court again.’” (Disclaimer: Zach took a course taught by Isgur in undergrad.)  A spokesperson for Katyal’s law firm did not return a request for comment.  Willick, for his part, says the implication that McConnell put him up to it was “simply false.”  “I covered the tariffs case closely as it wound its way through the courts,” Willick wrote in a new column this week. “I heard through the grapevine about the plans for the Supreme Court argument, which weren’t a secret in D.C. legal circles.”  Willick declined to comment further when The Gavel reached out.  He’s right that it wasn’t a secret. In the lead-up to the argument, we asked Victor Schwartz, the CEO of VOS Selections, one of the lead plaintiffs, about the choice. He pointed to Katyal’s record arguing more than 50 Supreme Court cases.  “Judge McConnell, terrific scholar, as we all know, but he’s not really been in front of the Supreme Court for, like, a decade,” Schwartz told us at the time. "So, it's, you know, the firepower that we brought on with Neal Katyal.”  In all fairness to McConnell, who did not return our request for comment, he did argue a case before the justices in 2020, albeit a low-profile one. Dems embrace unlikely arguments after VA map is thrown out  After Virginia’s top court struck down a redistricting plan approved by voters that favors Democrats, the party went back to the drawing board — and came up with unexpected ideas.  Virginia Democrats on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore the new congressional map, which would give the party up to four House pickup opportunities in November’s midterms.   “The Virginia Supreme Court’s decision amounts to judicial defiance of the Commonwealth’s Constitution and the statutes enacted by the General Assembly lawfully establishing congressional districts to be used in the upcoming 2026 election,” their emergency application reads.  In that filing, Virginia’s Democrats turn to an unlikely argument: the so-called “Independent State Legislature Theory” backed by Republicans in the wake of the 2020 election.  The theory — which asserted that state legislatures have the final say on congressional elections regulation, not to be limited by state constitutions or courts — was scorned by Democrats and rejected by the Supreme Court in its 2023 ruling in Moore v. Harper.   However, the justices left open a narrow exception in instances where state courts “transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections."  Virginia Democrats now claim that’s exactly what the Virginia Supreme Court did in striking down the new map.   “This is the rare case in which a state court’s decision so dramatically departed from the text of the state constitution that it satisfied this exacting standard,” they wrote.   The argument was met with raised eyebrows from some legal experts.  “At the time, this caveat in the Court's opinion was treated with skepticism by many opponents of the ISL theory, who worried that SCOTUS had left the door open a crack for state legislatures to evade state constitutions,” Thomas Berry, director of the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, wrote on X. “So it is somewhat ironic now to see this exact passage being cited approvingly by the Virginia legislature in an attempt to ask SCOTUS to overrule a state supreme court's interpretation of a state constitution.”  Virginia Democrats also weighed more drastic options to keep their map intact, including making moves to replace the entirety of the state’s top court, The New York Times reported.   To achieve that outcome, state Democrats would lower the mandatory retirement age for state Supreme Court justices to 54, the age of the youngest current justice, or less. They would also invoke a January ruling by a state circuit court judge that, because notices weren’t posted at courthouses and other public locations in the months before a general election, the 2026 constitutional amendment effort to redraw the maps was invalid, according to the Times.   Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, referenced, in a blog post for The Volokh Conspiracy, the debate around whether federal judges may be impeached for their decisions. He compared it to the Democrats’ brainstorm, writing that judges would be removed for decisions by virtue of lowering the retirement age.  “We often talk about constitutional hardball,” he wrote. “This would be murderball.”  SIDEBAR 5 top docket updates Abortion ruling remains paused: Abortion pills will remain available via mail until at least Thursday after Justice Samuel Alito extended a temporary pause on a lower court ruling that would have blocked access nationwide while a lawsuit is argued.  WHCA dinner suspect pleads not guilty: Cole Allen, the man accused of attempting to assassinate Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner last month, pleaded not guilty to four federal charges.   SPLC pleads not guilty, too: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) pleaded not guilty to federal charges alleging it used a now-defunct informant program to funnel money to hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).  SCOTUS justices to head to Capitol Hill: Supreme Court justices will testify about their budget request to the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 20, according to Punchbowl News. It would mark the first time since 2019 that a sitting justice has testified before lawmakers.  Comey trial scheduled: A federal judge in North Carolina set a July 15 trial date for former FBI Director James Comey on charges alleging he threatened Trump’s life with a social media post of seashells displayed to read “86 47.”  In other news Supreme estate sale: The home where former Supreme Court Justice David Souter spent his final years — plus, a curated collection of books from his personal library — is up for sale. Awkward: Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), a candidate for Colorado governor, wrote on X that the state “needs a leader, not a lawyer” — a jab at his opponent, Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser. One small snag: Bennet is a lawyer, too. According to his congressional bio, he graduated from Yale Law School in 1993 and worked as counsel to the U.S. deputy attorney general and a special assistant U.S. attorney in Connecticut before pivoting to politics. Striking out competition? A new lawsuit accuses Lucky Strike of an illegal scheme to consolidate bowling centers in the U.S. and drive up the cost of the sport. “Shadow Docket” term inventor moves on: The Supreme Court world is in a fierce debate over what to call the justices’ fast-moving cases that get decided often without public explanation. William Baude, the law professor who coined the term “shadow docket” in 2015, this week joined the growing chorus who say the term has taken on a nefarious meaning and isn’t apt. Baude now favors “interim docket.”  PETITION PILE Petitions for the Supreme Court to take up cases that we are keeping a close eye on.  Voting Rights Act: Following the Supreme Court’s blockbuster Voting Rights Act (VRA) decision, the justices could again narrow the law. They must decide how to proceed with two pending petitions that ask them to rule if private organizations can bring VRA Section 2 lawsuits; some judges have ruled only the government can. The justices can take up the issue now or order the lower courts to take another look in light of their recent VRA decision. The cases are State Board of Election Commissioners v. Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe.  Title IX: A similar debate has erupted over Title IX, the law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded schools. Georgia Tech’s former women’s basketball coach and a former Augusta University professor argue the law allows school employees to file suits, too. The Trump administration objects, but it agreed the Supreme Court should take it up to settle the issue. The case is Crowther v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia.  The Prohibition era: A wine company and self-described “avid wine drinkers” argue that alcohol restrictions in Arizona and Indiana are unconstitutional. They require out-of-state retailers to have a physical presence in their state to directly ship alcohol to citizens. The cases raise tension between how the Constitution assigns Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and how the 1933-era amendment ending prohibition provides states with broad authority over alcohol. The cases are Day v. Henry and Chicago Wine Company v. Braun. 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit is set to hold oral arguments in the Trump administration’s appeal of a summary judgment ruling against it in a lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s policy of deportations to a third country without notice or opportunity to contest a fear of persecution there.   A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Office of Legal Counsel's new opinion declaring the Presidential Records Act unconstitutional.  Kouri Richins, a Utah mother convicted of killing her husband, is set to be sentenced. Thursday The Supreme Court is expected to announce opinions.   The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is set to hear oral arguments in the Trump administration’s appeal of rulings blocking his executive orders targeting several of the nation’s top law firms and whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid.   Friday Alabama faces a deadline to tell a panel of federal judges when the state needs its final congressional map in hand to facilitate a timely primary for the midterms.  Monday The Supreme Court will announce orders. Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, is due in New York state court for a status hearing.   Tuesday A federal judge in California is set to hold a hearing on the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging its reductions-in-force, or RIFs, during an earlier government shutdown.  Tyler Robinson, the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk, is due in Utah state court for a status hearing.   WHAT WE'RE READING The New York Times’s Sarah Kessler: All Those A.I. Note Takers? They’re Making Lawyers Very Nervous. The Wall Street Journal’s Angel Au-Yeung: A Blunt Judge and Two Star Litigators: The Legal Players in Musk’s OpenAI Suit  Politico Magazine’s Daniel Desrochers: The Man Trying to Make Trump’s Tariffs Go on Forever CBS News’s Melissa Quinn: From Truth Social to judicial decisions: Groups challenging Trump's actions get help from his posts  The New York Times Magazine: He Thinks Netflix Accused Him of Murder. The Courts Disagree.  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.