On this day in 1803, the Supreme Court released its ruling in Marbury v. Madison, which established the principle of judicial review (or did it?). Mark the anniversary with us by joining our opinion announcement live blog beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST. At the Court On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear argument next term in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, on whether Boulder, Colorado, can hold oil and gas companies liable under state law for damage caused by climate change. For more on this case and Monday’s order list, see Amy’s coverage in the On Site section below. Also on Monday, the court heard arguments in Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises and Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A., two cases brought by U.S. businesses that are seeking to recover losses they suffered when Cuba’s communist government came to power and seized their assets more than 65 years ago. As noted above, the court has indicated that it may announce opinions this morning at 10 a.m. EST. We will be live blogging beginning at 9:30. After the possible announcement of opinions, the court will hear argument in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, on whether district courts are authorized to extend the 30-day deadline for a defendant to move to remove a case to federal court. The court also may announce opinions tomorrow morning. We will be live blogging then, as well. Also tomorrow, the court will hear argument in Pung v. Isabella County, on the constitutionality of tax foreclosure sales. Morning Reads Trump predicts Supreme Court will rule against him on birthright citizenship after tariffs loss Tara Suter, The Hill President Donald Trump on Monday posted again about the tariffs ruling on his Truth Social account, describing the Supreme Court as “incompetent” and predicting that it may also rule against him in the birthright citizenship case, according to The Hill. “The next thing you know they will rule in favor of China and others, who are making an absolute fortune on Birthright Citizenship, by saying the 14th Amendment was NOT written to take care of the ‘babies of slaves,’ which it was as proven by the EXACT TIMING of its construction, filing, and ratification, which perfectly coincided with the END OF THE CIVIL WAR,” Trump wrote. He continued, “Let our supreme court keep making decisions that are so bad and deleterious to the future of our Nation – I have a job to do. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Tariff extensions off the table for Senate Democrats as Trump rages over Supreme Court loss Benjamin S. Weiss, Courthouse News Service Over the weekend, the Trump administration began rebuilding its system of tariffs using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, “which allows the president to impose temporary tariffs as a response to economic instability,” according to Courthouse News Service. Section 122 tariffs, however, expire after “150 days unless Congress approves an extension,” and “Senate Democrats said Monday they would block any effort to” approve such an extension, “effectively dooming the White House’s latest set of import duties to expire this summer.” “Thanks to the Senate filibuster, Republicans would likely need a handful of Democratic votes to pass any legislation aimed at extending the Section 122 tariffs.” US Supreme Court won't revive NRA free speech suit against NY ex-official John Kruzel, Reuters In its Monday order list, the court announced that it had declined “to revive the National Rifle Association’s lawsuit accusing a former New York state official of coercing banks and insurers to avoid doing business with the gun rights group,” according to Reuters. “The justices in 2024 had reinstated the group’s lawsuit accusing Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services, of violating its free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. But they declined to do so a second time after a lower court again dismissed the lawsuit,” holding that “Vullo was immune from the NRA’s claims.” Schools must pay $1.5 million to families over LGBTQIA+ storybook lawsuit Talia Richman, The Baltimore Banner In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of parents who had challenged their school district’s refusal to allow them to opt their children out of instruction that included LGBTQ+ themes. On Friday, the group’s legal team announced that a district judge has ordered “Montgomery County Public Schools [to] pay $1.5 million to the families,” according to The Baltimore Banner. The order also instructs the school board to “notify families in advance when the schools plan to use one of the books at the heart of the case — or any similar book — in a lesson.” Federal appeals court allows Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law to take effect Patrick Wall, The Times-Picayune The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Friday “lifted an order that had stopped” Louisiana from enforcing its law requiring displays of the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms, according to The Times-Picayune. The ruling did not address “the constitutionality of the law. Instead, the majority said it is too soon to block the law on constitutional grounds because there are many ‘unresolved’ questions, such as what the Ten Commandments posters will look like, how prominently they will be displayed and whether teachers will incorporate them into their lessons.” The multifaith group of families that challenged the law on religious freedom grounds have said they are considering whether to appeal the 5th Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court. Let’s Talk Tariffs: A Closer Look At The SCOTUS Opinions David Lat, Original Jurisdiction In a post for his Substack, Original Jurisdiction, David Lat shared what stood out to him about the seven separate opinions – totaling 170 pages – in the tariffs case. Among other observations, Lat noted that Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for the court was “short and sweet” at 21 pages. “This struck me as the right choice,” Lat explained, “for an opinion that Chief Justice Roberts knew would be read by an unusually high number of laypeople.” On Site From the SCOTUSblog Team Supreme Court agrees to hear case on Colorado dispute over climate change The court on Monday added just one new case to its oral argument docket, agreeing to review a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court in a case brought under state law by Boulder, Colorado, which contends that oil and gas companies have knowingly played a role in exacerbating climate change, thereby causing millions of dollars of damage to its property and residents. Argument Analysis Court grapples with disputes over efforts to recover losses from Cuban confiscations In a pair of oral arguments on Monday, the Supreme Court wrestled with disputes over whether U.S. companies can recover under U.S. law for losses resulting from the confiscation of property that they owned in Cuba more than 65 years ago. In both cases, several justices had tough questions for both sides, and Chief Justice John Roberts was all but silent, making it difficult to predict how the court will rule. Contributor Corner Birthright citizenship: under the flag In a new Brothers in Law column, Akhil Amar, Vikram Amar, and Samarth Desai explored why they believe President Donald Trump’s order seeking to end birthright citizenship is “egregiously unconstitutional.” Their analysis centers on “three words the 14th Amendment’s framers and ratifiers repeated countless times and that best capture the essence of the citizenship clause: under the flag.” Contributor Corner How and why the conservative justices differed on tariffs In his Courtly Observations column, Erwin Chemerinsky reflected on the “fascinating – and significant – differences among the six conservative justices” that were showcased in Friday’s ruling on tariffs. These differences “could have great importance in the future,” Chemerinsky contended. A Closer Look: A Visitor’s Guide to Oral Argument On Monday, the justices heard the first arguments of the court’s February sitting. As most SCOTUSblog readers are well aware, members of the public always have the option of listening to live audio on argument days. But if one is able to do so, there’s still nothing quite like attending an argument in person. This Closer Look is a reminder of what you should know before you go. As our own Nora Collins wrote about in November, whereas in the past the public had to wait in line to attend oral argument, the court introduced a lottery system in December 2024 (check out her article for that system’s intricacies). For people unwilling to play the lotto or who failed to score a seat through it, the court continues to provide seating to those who wait in line. But such seats are limited – blockbuster cases often require camping out overnight, and even then, entry isn’t guaranteed. Assuming one gets in, up next is a security screening. While the court advises against taking babies or young children to an argument session, certain things are prohibited completely from being brought into the courtroom. This includes weapons (duh), “pointed objects,” food or beverages of any kind, aerosol containers, electronics, “identification tags (other than military),” bags of a certain size, hats, books(!), and strollers. Fortunately, the court provides lockers where these items can be stored while court is in session. (Of note: Attendees are allowed to bring a notepad and pen.) But that’s not all. Attendees are also prohibited from “wearing or displaying [] political buttons or attire,” as well as “inappropriate clothing.” Although the latter is undefined, it is apparently strictly enforced. In 2018, for example, a tribal leader was not permitted to attend oral argument in Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc. because he refused to remove his traditional headdress. As for the departure protocol, once the argument is over, everyone has to promptly leave the courtroom. If one hasn’t had their fill of the building itself, however, One First Street reopens once the court is done sitting, allowing visitors to enjoy the public portions of the building before it closes at 3 p.m. EST. SCOTUS Quote MS. KEENA: “Well – and – and it’s Minnesota’s position that a warrant isn’t necessary.” JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “I – I appreciate that.” MS. KEENA: “Okay.” JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “But I’m assuming if you can get a warrant.” JUSTICE ALITO: “Justice – Justice Sotomayor is assuming that you’re going to lose. So she wants to know what your reaction is to that.” JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “Well, it –” MS. KEENA: “I don’t like it. I don’t like it one bit.” — Birchfield v. North Dakota The post SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 24 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.