If you are looking for a great introduction to this morning’s argument in United States v. Hemani, please check out this animated explainer, done in partnership with Briefly. Our live blog begins at 9:30 a.m. EST, with argument to start at approximately 10 a.m. At the Court On Friday, the court indicated that it may announce opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST. We will be live blogging that morning beginning at 9:30 a.m. Also on Friday, the justices met in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from that conference are expected this morning at 9:30 a.m. EST. Tomorrow, the court will hear argument in Hunter v. United States, on whether a federal appeals court properly dismissed a Texas man’s appeal of a mandatory-medication condition when he had signed an appellate waiver as part of his plea agreement but the judge who imposed the condition told him that he had a right to appeal. Morning Reads Trump’s Unilateral Attack on Iran Paves Way for Broader Dispute Over War Powers Charlie Savage, The New York Times The United States’ military operation in Iran has reignited “a recurring debate over who rightfully wields war powers in American democracy,” according to The New York Times. President Donald Trump is facing “accusations that he is violating the Constitution by starting a war without congressional authorization,” but he is far from the first president “to commit forces to combat without congressional authorization.” The spotlight is now on the War Powers Resolution, which outlines “a limited set of situations in which a president can unilaterally deploy forces into hostilities: essentially, when the country is under attack.” When it was passed in 1973, the law gave Congress the power “to force presidents to immediately withdraw American forces from unauthorized deployments” through a veto-proof resolution. But in 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers must “send such measures to the White House – meaning they would need two-thirds majorities in both chambers to override a presidential veto.” Trump touted support for gun rights but has defended restrictions in court Lawrence Hurley, NBC News Ahead of Monday’s argument in United States v. Hemani, in which the Trump administration is defending gun restrictions, NBC News spoke with gun rights advocates about how what Trump said about the Second Amendment on the campaign trail compares to how his administration has approached it over the past year. “The Trump administration has been very good on gun rights issues that are coming up in the states. The same isn’t true at the federal level,” said Cody Wisniewski, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation, to NBC News. Specifically, “the administration has … oppos[ed] a Hawaii measure barring people possessing guns from entering private property open to the public without permission” in a separate Supreme Court case and “also sued the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, claiming various gun rights infringements,” while at the same time “defending long-standing federal gun restrictions in court.” Trump Administration Seeks Delay in Tariff Refund Fight Zoe Tillman, Bloomberg In a Friday filing, lawyers for the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit “to wait as long as four months before reviving litigation” on tariff refunds, according to Bloomberg. “Complexity in the future counsels appropriately careful process, not breakneck speed,” the government wrote, contending that “a delay wouldn’t hurt companies because ‘monetary loss is a classic harm that can be remedied by payment of money with appropriate interest.’” The filing came after President Donald Trump again expressed his displeasure with the Supreme Court’s tariffs ruling on social media. “Is a Rehearing or Readjudication of this case possible???,” the president wrote. Retail customers file lawsuits over tariffs against FedEx and Ray-Bans maker Mae Anderson, Associated Press As of Friday, “[a]t least two retail customers pursuing tariff-related refunds [had] filed proposed class-action lawsuits in U.S. Courts against companies that also sued to recoup costs from the import taxes” that were struck down by the Supreme Court, according to the Associated Press. The lawsuits against FedEx and “EssilorLuxottica, which makes Ray-Ban sunglasses, seek to ensure that consumers get a share of any refunds the businesses get.” The FedEx lawsuit was filed after the company promised to share any refunds it manages to secure with its customers but noted that the promise is not “legally enforceable.” Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at New York Law School, told the Associated Press that he expects “many more such consumer lawsuits to surface” in the months ahead. Catholic bishops: Trump’s assault on birthright citizenship affronts Catholic teaching Jack Jenkins and Aleja Hertzler-McCain, Religion News Service The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is among the organizations that have filed amicus, or friend-of-the-court, briefs with the Supreme Court in support of the groups challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The USCCB’s brief states that doing away with birthright citizenship “would undermine church teaching and the ‘moral foundations’ of the country,” according to Religion News Service. “The brief is the latest in growing pushback from Catholic leaders about the president’s immigration policies, with the conservative-leaning conference of prelates increasingly at odds with the Republican administration’s efforts to pursue mass deportations.” On Site SCOTUS Videos United States v. Hemani: an animated explainer On Friday, we released the first in a series of animated videos, done in partnership with Briefly, on some of the most important upcoming cases of the 2025-26 term. As noted above, Friday’s video offered an introduction to United States v. Hemani. Case Preview Supreme Court to consider whether freight brokers can be held liable for negligent hiring In Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, to be argued on Wednesday, March 4, the court will consider whether a federal law initially designed to deal with state trucking regulations supersedes state common-law claims holding freight brokers liable for negligently selecting dangerous motor carriers or drivers. That may not sound particularly fascinating, but the issue before the court could have broad liability implications for transportation logistics. Argument Analysis Justices appear dubious of challenge to constitutionality of foreclosure sales During Wednesday’s argument in Pung v. Isabella County, several justices seemed ready to reject the idea that the customary practice of selling real estate at an auction to recover delinquent taxes amounts to a taking without just compensation. At the same time, many appeared incensed at what seemed to them to be the high-handed treatment of the taxpayer by the local government. Contributor Corner The major debate over major questions in the tariffs decision is only the beginning In her Clear Statements column, Abbe R. Gluck reflected on the role of the “major questions” rule – the judicial presumption that Congress doesn’t delegate big questions to the executive branch without being clear that it’s doing so – in the Supreme Court’s tariffs ruling. “All seven of the opinions in the case mention the rule … and each takes a different position,” Gluck wrote, adding that the debate “offers a mere harbinger of more drama and doctrinal shifts to come.” A Closer Look: The Fight Over Footnotes Given the seriousness of current events (some of which are described in the Morning Reads), we thought it might be healthy to offer a lighter Closer Look. And so we turn to: footnotes. If you ever find yourself in a room full of litigators (given you’re a SCOTUSblog reader, you likely know one or two), and want some decent conversation, bring up this topic. Even the justices disagree on what to do with “those pesky footnotes.” (In fact, there’s an entire book, The Supreme Court Footnote: A Surprising History, that purports to cover “[a] history of the humble footnote and its impact on the highest court in the land.”) Interestingly, heavy footnote usage is relatively new to the court, with a steep increase in density over the 20th century. Indeed, Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Benjamin Cardozo wrote without any dependence on footnotes, and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes reportedly said (but never wrote) “I will not be bound by a footnote.” Some, but not all, more recent justices have claimed to be on the same page. Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. once wrote a memo to his law clerks asking them to avoid long, heavily footnoted opinions: “[A] frequent and justified criticism of this Court is that opinions are too long and – like many law review articles and notes – are overburdened with footnotes.” Likewise, Justice Arthur Goldberg said that footnotes “cause more problems than they solve.” When President Bill Clinton nominated Justice Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court in 1994, Breyer echoed Goldberg’s advice to him as his clerk (“Clear writing, he always told me, reflects clear thinking, and it makes legal opinions accessible and understandable, not just to the lawyers but to all the people whom they touch. And so today, I will make this public promise to Justice Goldberg: No footnotes. Or as few as possible.”). Breyer kept his promise. Another footnote-skeptic could be found in Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. A former law clerk for the justice once wrote simply: “Justice O’Connor doesn’t like footnotes in her opinion,” and added that this “was a bracing lesson for a young lawyer fresh from a law review where a legion of footnotes, packed with authorities and afterthoughts, marched halfway up almost every page.” After he wrote his first memo, O’Connor apparently told the clerk, “If you have something to say, just say it. Don’t weasel around down in the brush.” O’Connor seems to have followed her own advice – her majority opinions averaged 474 footnoted words, a good deal lower than her colleagues (the average in opinions of all the justices being 1,811). Perhaps Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it best, calling for “opinions that both get it right, and keep it tight, without undue digressions or decorations.” Oh, and for those keeping score: Although we previously noted that the longest majority opinion is Buckley v. Valeo, if one focuses only on footnotes, the 1961 opinion of McGowan v. Maryland (on the legality of certain “Sunday closing laws” or “Blue laws”) is the clear winner, with 17,197 footnoted words that constitute nearly 41% of the opinion’s overall length. The main culprit: Justice Felix Frankfurter, with an impressive 143 of them. SCOTUS Quote JUSTICE KAGAN: “Mr. Frank –” JUSTICE GORSUCH: “We – we – I’m sorry.” JUSTICE GORSUCH: “Oh, please go ahead.” JUSTICE KAGAN: “No.” CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “Justice Kagan.” JUSTICE KAGAN: “I was going to change the subject.” (Laughter.) JUSTICE GORSUCH: “So was I.” (Laughter.) JUSTICE GORSUCH: “Jurisdiction?” JUSTICE KAGAN: “Yes.” JUSTICE GORSUCH: “Go for it.” — Frank v. Gaos The post SCOTUStoday for Monday, March 2 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.