SCOTUStoday for Thursday, January 22

We’re on the precipice of the Supreme Court’s four-week winter recess. Only time will tell if the next month will be a quiet one or if we’ll get additional rulings.

Plus, a reminder: we’re hiring! We’re looking for an editor to oversee a new daily newsletter for commercial litigators and corporate counsel that highlights circuit court decisions, relists, denials, en banc grants, and notable dissents.

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• Late on Tuesday, California Republicans asked the justices on the interim docket to prevent their state from using a new map in the 2026 elections, alleging unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. For more on this application, see the On Site section below.
• On Wednesday, the court heard argument in Trump v. Cook, on the president’s effort to remove Lisa Cook as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Amy’s analysis is also highlighted in the On Site section.
• The court’s January argument session is now over. The first arguments of the February sitting are scheduled for Monday, Feb. 23.
• Tomorrow, the justices will take part in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. We may know as soon as that afternoon if the court has added any additional cases to the oral argument docket.
• The court has not yet indicated when it will next release opinions. If the court follows its typical pattern, the earliest the next opinion day may be is Friday, Feb. 20.  

Morning Reads

• Speaker Johnson backs impeachment of 2 federal judges, claiming ‘egregious abuses’ (Emily Brooks, The Hill) — During a Wednesday press conference, House Speaker Mike Johnson “said he would support impeachment articles against two federal judges, including one who has ruled against President Trump’s interests in high-profile cases,” according to The Hill. Johnson’s comments came in response to a question about “calls from some Republicans to bring up articles of impeachment against Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and Judge Deborah Boardman of the U.S. District Court in Maryland.” Boasberg has been criticized for, among other things, “his court decisions blocking Trump from deporting some migrants under the Alien Enemies Act,” while Boardman faced pushback for her “sentencing decision for Sophie Roske, who was charged under birth name Nicholas Roske for traveling across the country with the intention of killing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”
• A Brief From Every Living Former Fed Chair Could Sway the Justices (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)(Paywall) — Ahead of the argument in Trump v. Cook, The New York Times highlighted an “extraordinary” friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case by “every living former chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve … along with six former Treasury secretaries and many other high-ranking former officials appointed by presidents of both parties.” The brief contended “that allowing President Trump to immediately fire Lisa D. Cook, a Fed governor, would do grave damage to the institution’s independence, jeopardizing the credibility of the nation’s monetary policy.” The Times article suggested that the “justices may pay particular attention” to this brief.
• Native American group vows Supreme Court fight over woke New York mascot ban (Bonny Chu, Fox News) — The Native American Guardian’s Association, “[a] Native American-backed advocacy group fighting for representation in schools,” has announced that it is prepared to take its fight against “the New York Board of Regents’ 2023 rule banning the use of Native names or imagery by public schools” all the way to the Supreme Court, according to Fox News. The group contends that the rule “is discriminatory and violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment under the law.” A federal district court dismissed the group’s case in November, holding “that NAGA did not have the legal right to challenge the rule.” NAGA stated at the time that it “would appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, viewing it as a step toward taking the case to the Supreme Court.”
• Texas, Louisiana argue to keep Ten Commandments in schools (BrieAnna J. Frank, USA Today) — On Tuesday, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard argument on “whether laws requiring public schools in Louisiana and Texas to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms are unconstitutional,” according to USA Today. “Among the points of discussion during the hearing were whether requirements to display the Ten Commandments in public schools would amount to unconstitutional religious coercion or merely be a passive acknowledgement of a significant historical text.” Judges wrestled with the current dispute’s relationship with a 2023 Supreme Court case on a praying football coach, in which the court held that judges reviewing religious displays should look “to historical practices and understandings.”
• What It’s Like Attending SCOTUS Arguments in 2026 (Manny Marotta, Fix the Court) — Like SCOTUSblog’s Nora Collins, Manny Marotta recently had the opportunity to attend a Supreme Court argument thanks to the court’s lottery ticketing system. Marotta described being in the courtroom for Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation on Jan. 14 next to several families from New Jersey “and a few Capitol Hill interns.” Marotta wrote, “I was pleasantly surprised by Justice Thomas’s loquacity considering that there was an entire 10-year period during which he asked no questions from the bench. Justice Alito, on the other hand, appeared to fall asleep during the arguments, first cradling his head in his hand and then laying back in his chair and facing the ceiling with his eyes closed. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett appeared tentative in their questioning, and Justice Jackson spoke the most. All the justices were sipping from thermoses.”

A Closer Look: Coverage of the Trump v. Cook Argument

Yesterday’s argument in Trump v. Cook was covered live by several news outlets (including SCOTUSblog) and summarized afterward by many more. Here’s an overview of the headlines used for this coverage, many of which highlighted the justices’ skepticism of the Trump administration’s position.

Reuters: US Supreme Court appears reluctant to let Trump fire Fed’s Lisa Cook

Associated Press: Supreme Court seems inclined to keep Lisa Cook on Fed board despite Trump attempt to fire her

The Washington Post: Supreme Court appears likely to allow Lisa Cook to remain on Fed board

USA Today: Can Trump fire Fed’s Lisa Cook? Supreme Court seems doubtful

NPR: Supreme Court doubtful of Trump claim he can fire Fed governors by fiat

Newsweek: Supreme Court May Be Preparing to Deal Trump a Disappointing Blow

Fox News: SCOTUS signals skepticism in allowing Trump’s Fed firing to proceed

Politico: Supreme Court casts doubt on Trump’s power to fire Fed official without proper review

Vox: The Supreme Court is likely to hand Trump a rare loss on the Federal Reserve

SCOTUS Quote

MR. CLEMENT: “…Because I do think you would have declaratory judgment. I do think declaratory judgment –”

JUSTICE GORSUCH: “I asked you — I asked you to put that aside for the moment.”

MR. CLEMENT: “No, no I — and I tried to as long as I could.” (Laughter.)

JUSTICE GORSUCH: “All right.”

MR. CLEMENT: “But — but –“

JUSTICE GORSUCH: “Then — then I give up. Okay.”

— Trump v. Cook

On Site

From the SCOTUSblog Team

California Republicans urge court to strike congressional map as racially discriminatory

In December, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to use a new congressional map enacted to give Republicans five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, blocking a lower court’s ruling that the map unconstitutionally sorted voters based on race. On Tuesday night, Republicans came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to prohibit California from using a new map – adopted in response to Texas’ map – that added five Democratic seats there.

Argument Analysis

Supreme Court appears likely to prevent Trump from firing Fed governor

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared likely to leave Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, on the job while her challenge to President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire her continues, but it was not clear whether the justices would send the case back to the lower courts or instead go ahead and rule that Trump does not have a good reason to fire Cook.

Opinion Analysis

Justices hold that restitution requirements imposed on federal convicts can’t be ratcheted up after the crime but before sentencing

On Tuesday, in what may turn out to be the shortest majority opinion in an argued case of the 2025-26 term, a unanimous court held that the ex post facto clause of the Constitution applies to sanctions imposed in federal criminal proceedings under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.

Justices reject state limits on malpractice actions for cases in federal court

Although several of the justices may not be fans of medical malpractice litigation, none of them in Berk v. Choy was willing to clutter up the federal district courts with the special procedures Delaware (like many other states) has designed to limit that litigation.

Relist Watch

The relist logjam finally breaks

In his latest Relist Watch column, John Elwood highlighted the one new relist for this week’s conference: Salazar v. Paramount Global, a dispute over whether the Video Privacy Protection Act – a law Congress enacted to protect privacy after reporters sought then-Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video rental records during his bruising confirmation fight – protects anyone who subscribes to any goods or services from a video provider.

Contributor Corner

Four answers to the justices in Wolford v. Lopez

In their latest Brothers in Law column, Akhil and Vikram Amar reflected on Tuesday’s argument in Wolford v. Lopez, offering their own responses to key questions raised by the justices.