In late September, we launched our expanded daily newsletter, SCOTUStoday. Since then, we’ve released 71 editions of it, including 61 “A Closer Looks” – which focus on details of the Supreme Court’s work that may be unfamiliar to even diehard court watchers.  

Capital Matters is a recurring series by Jordan Steiker that covers federal constitutional regulation of the death penalty and federal habeas review of state criminal convictions and sentences. 

At first blush, it is hard to imagine why a case like Hamm v. Smith, argued earlier this month, has occupied so much attention from the Supreme Court. On close examination, however, the case is about litigating within an important constitutional paradigm that is hanging by a thread.

On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors whom President Donald Trump has attempted to fire based on unproven allegations of mortgage fraud. Although Trump sought to terminate Cook “for cause,” the question of whether the president has the power to fire a governor of the Federal Reserve for any reason at all will likely come up at oral argument.

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.

Today we conclude our multi-part series on last term’s United States v. Skrmetti decision.

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.

Much recent commentary has suggested that the Roberts court is overly deferential to executive power – especially under President Donald Trump. The Niskanen Center, for example, contends that the court “is enabling Trump’s executive authority,” while the Brennan Center argues that the court has given “the president the power of a king.” But is this narrative supported by the empirical record? At the very least, is the Roberts court more deferential to presidential power than past courts? Our preliminary answer, like much else having to do with this court, is that it’s complicated.