A group of Haitian nationals urged the Supreme Court on Monday to leave in place a ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that allows them to stay in the United States for the time being because of unsafe conditions in their home country. Since returning to office last year, the Trump administration has sought to end deportation protections for several countries, including Venezuela, Ethiopia, and South Sudan. In a 40-page filing, the Haitian nationals told the justices that they will “suffer irreparable—potentially fatal—injury” if that ruling is put on hold because they could be deported immediately to Haiti, which they described as “‘a maelstrom of disease, poverty, violence (including sexual violence) and death.’”

Brothers in Law is a recurring series by brothers Akhil and Vikram Amar, with special emphasis on measuring what the Supreme Court says against what the Constitution itself says. For more content from Akhil and Vikram, please see Akhil’s free weekly podcast, “Amarica’s Constitution,” Vikram’s regular columns on Justia, and Akhil’s new book, Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution, 1840-1920.

A recent SCOTUSblog post by attorney Pete Patterson is so riddled with confusions and misstatements that it requires a strong corrective. Today we consider several of its biggest blemishes.

Major Questions is a recurring series by Adam White, which analyzes the court’s approach to administrative law, agencies, and the lower courts.

Does legislative history have a future in judicial opinions? For the first time in a long time, it seems so.

Cases and Controversies is a recurring series by Carolyn Shapiro, primarily focusing on the effects of the Supreme Court’s rulings, opinions, and procedures on the law, on other institutions, and on our constitutional democracy more generally.

In October, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in 10 cases. It has now decided eight of them. Louisiana v. Callais is one of the remaining cases, and one possible outcome of that case is that the Supreme Court will declare section 2 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional (or severely limit its effectiveness) as applied to vote dilution in redistricting. Justice Samuel Alito’s solo concurring opinion in Malliotakis v. Williams, issued Monday, March 2, suggests that he is either forecasting or trying to corral the votes for just that outcome.

Updated on March 13 at 4:40 p.m.

Welcome to our SCOTUS Innovators series, a new recurring column on people who have shaped our understanding of the Supreme Court.

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to chat with Jerry Goldman (a fellow Northwestern alum), founder of the Oyez project. For those unfamiliar with Oyez, this website was the first to digitize and share thousands of hours of Supreme Court oral arguments and opinion announcements, making it far easier for legal scholars and the public to engage with the court.