Oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, have concluded, but the conversation isn’t over. Listen now to a special live broadcast of the Advisory Opinions podcast about what the justices said and what could happen next.

Advisory Opinions host Sarah Isgur is joined by SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe, David French, Amanda Tyler, and Akhil Amar.

On Wednesday, April 1, we will be live blogging as the court hears argument in Trump v. Barbara, on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

Note: A login is not required to participate in the chat.

Also, to those of you who are in the legal profession, we would be very grateful if you could fill out this brief survey about your work.

The Supreme Court on Monday considered whether federal prosecutors can try a defendant not only in the district where the offense occurs, but also where the crime’s “contemplated effects” are felt. During the roughly 80-minute argument in Abouammo v. United States, the justices seemed to suggest that the answer was no, with several of them pressing the government on whether its approach was both rooted in the text of the statute at issue and faithful to the Constitution.  

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

It was a relatively quiet week at the relist window – just one grant, one denial, one apparent hold, and one new relist. Specifically, the justices granted review in Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, Georgia, a Title VII (employment discrimination) case asking whether a defendant who failed to plead an affirmative defense in its answer may nonetheless assert that defense as the basis for summary judgment, an issue that has divided the circuits. On the other end of the ledger, the court denied certiorari in Skinner v. Louisiana, drawing a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. They argued that James Skinner – convicted of the same murder as co-defendant Michael Wearry, on the basis of the same withheld evidence the court had already found constitutionally fatal in Wearry v. Cain – is entitled to the same relief the court gave Wearry, and that the Louisiana courts’ one-sentence dismissal of his Brady claim as “distinguishable enough” borders on open defiance of the court’s precedents. The court hasn’t taken further action on last week’s relist in Saldano v. Texas, involving a claim that petitioner Victor Saldaño can’t be executed under the court’s precedent in Atkins v. Virginia because of intellectual disability. My best guess (and it is only that) is that the justices are holding the case pending the outcome of Hamm v. Smith, an Atkins case that was argued in December, and which prompted commentary that “Atkins is on … precarious footing.” Stay tuned – Hamm may have more to say about that.

Updated on March 31 at 3:08 p.m.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sent a challenge to Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” – treatment intended to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity – for young people back to the lower courts for them to apply a new standard. By a vote of 8-1, the justices agreed with Kaley Chiles, the licensed counselor challenging the law, that the ban discriminates against her based on the views that she expresses in her talk therapy. A federal appeals court, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, should have applied a more stringent standard of review, known as strict scrutiny, to determine whether the law violates the First Amendment as applied to Chiles.

But the Supreme Court also strongly hinted that the ban would fail that test. In his 23-page opinion, Gorsuch stressed that in cases like Chiles’, Colorado’s ban “censors speech based on viewpoint.” Because the First Amendment “reflects … a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth,” Gorsuch continued, “any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter. She argued that the majority’s opinion “could be ushering in an era of unprofessional and unsafe medical care administered by effectively unsupervised healthcare providers.”