Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean for the law, for lawyers and lower courts, and for people’s lives.

What will be the fate of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the Supreme Court’s 2020 landmark ruling protecting gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals from employment discrimination? Over the last year, the court has failed to follow the logic of Bostock in upholding discrimination against transgender individuals. And at the oral arguments on Jan. 13, in two cases involving state laws barring transgender girls and women from participating in sports that correspond to their gender identity, the oral arguments gave the strong sense that a majority of the justices are likely to uphold the state laws, making even more salient the question of what will be left of Bostock.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday debated whether New Jersey’s public transit agency can be sued in state courts in New York and Pennsylvania. The New Jersey Transit Corporation argues that it is an “arm” of the state and therefore is immune from lawsuits elsewhere, but after a little over an hour of arguments, it was not clear whether a majority of the justices agreed.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of a Montana man who was convicted of assaulting a police officer. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled in Case v. Montana that police officers in Anaconda, Montana, did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they entered William Case’s home without a warrant, rejecting Case’s contention that the police officers needed “probable cause” to go into his house. Under the Supreme Court’s earlier cases, Kagan wrote, it was enough that the police officers reasonably believed that Case – whose former girlfriend had called them to tell them that Case had threatened to commit suicide – needed emergency assistance.

We were live as the court released its opinions in Barrett v. United States, Case v. Montana, and Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections.

Click here for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements. Note: A login is not required to participate in the chat.

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

Supreme Court nominations represent one of a president’s most consequential responsibilities, the impact of which extends decades beyond his term. The language presidents employ when discussing nominees reveals their constitutional philosophy, political strategy, and vision for the court. It is not clear when another Supreme Court seat will open. But, in anticipation of such a vacancy, this article examines how Presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump described Supreme Court justices and nominees during their campaigns and in official speeches.