Six years ago today, the court announced that it was postponing its March argument session in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The press release noted that its “postponement of argument sessions in light of public health concerns [was] not unprecedented”: the court had previously postponed scheduled arguments amid the Spanish flu epidemic in October 1918 and shortened the argument calendars in 1793 and 1798 due to yellow fever. At the Court On Friday, the court indicated that it may announce opinions on Friday, March 20, at 10 a.m. EDT. We will be live blogging that morning beginning at 9:30. The Trump administration has asked the court to allow it to remove protected status from Haitian nationals. The response to that request from the Haitian nationals challenging the government’s efforts is due today by 12 p.m. EDT. A similar request from the administration on protected status for Syrian nationals is fully briefed. The court’s decision could come at any time. The court will next hear arguments on Monday, March 23, the first day of its March sitting. Morning Reads Judge blocks DOJ subpoenas of Federal Reserve Ryan Knappenberger, Courthouse News Service On Friday, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg “blocked the Justice Department from subpoenaing the Federal Reserve and its chair Jerome Powell, slamming the related investigation” into Powell’s June 2025 testimony on the Fed’s office renovation “as a clear effort to pressure Powell and his colleagues to lower interest rates,” according to Courthouse News Service. “[T]he government has offered no evidence that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the president,” Boasberg wrote. The probe into Powell followed the Trump administration’s “effort last August to terminate Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook based on claims of mortgage fraud, leading her to sue. … Cook’s case is currently pending before the Supreme Court, which heard arguments on Jan. 21.” Trump Targets Forced Labor in Global Tariff Scheme Ana Swanson, The New York Times (Paywall) The Trump administration on Thursday continued to “resurrect” the system of tariffs that was struck down by the Supreme Court by initiating “a sweeping trade investigation targeting dozens of countries over their trade policies on goods made with forced labor,” according to The New York Times. It was the second investigation announced last week, following one “focus[ed] on excess production in the factory sectors of more than a dozen major trading partners.” “The investigations are being carried out under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law that allows the United States to impose tariffs in response to unfair trade practices” after investigations and hearings. The forced labor investigation “will target 60 economies, including Algeria, Canada, Norway, Saudi Arabia, China and the United Kingdom, as well as the 27-country bloc of the European Union.” 98-year-old federal judge suspended for mental fitness appeals to Supreme Court Zach Schonfeld, The Hill Three years ago, Judge Pauline Newman’s “fellow judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit prevented her from taking on new cases indefinitely,” citing concerns about her mental fitness. Newman, now 98, filed a lawsuit over the decision, fighting to continue hearing cases. Last week, Newman brought her case to the Supreme Court, asking the justices in a petition for review to allow her to challenge her suspension in court, according to The Hill. “Newman argues her suspension is unconstitutional and that her due process rights were violated, because her colleagues should’ve transferred the matter to another court.” The Enduring Fight Over 'Fighting Words' Jacob Sullum, Reason Reason Magazine revisited the Supreme Court’s 1942 ruling in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which addressed “fighting words,” exploring its role in modern debates about whether offensive speech should be illegal. The case was a challenge to the constitutionality of a New Hampshire law that made it a crime to use certain “offensive, derisive and annoying words and names.” The court sided with the state, ruling that the First Amendment does not apply to words that “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Since 1942, the court has “never again relied on [Chaplinsky] to uphold a criminal conviction. But the Court has not explicitly repudiated the doctrine, which continues to influence lower-court decisions,” including in cases involving individuals who “were arrested for talking back to the police.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Reflects on Law, Faith, and Judicial Responsibility at Notre Dame Law School Annika Johnson, University of Notre Dame Justice Clarence Thomas recently visited the University of Notre Dame for a discussion with law professor Haley Proctor, who is a SCOTUSblog contributor and served as a clerk to Thomas, on his upbringing, faith, and work on the court. Thomas reflected on rising hostility toward judges, highlighting the importance of learning to disagree with someone without attacking them. “I would encourage you to develop a civil, compassionate view toward each other, especially when you disagree. If you cannot treat each other that way in this micro setting, how will you do so in the macro setting of the rest of the world?,” he said, according to the school’s coverage of the event. Thomas described his effort to hire clerks from different backgrounds and nurture “companionship and cooperation.” Working with clerks “is the joy of my life. It makes the job fun,” he said. On Site Contributor Corner Is Justice Alito jumping the gun on voting rights? In her Cases and Controversies column, Carolyn Shapiro revisited Justice Samuel Alito’s concurring opinion in Malliotakis v. Williams, in which the court cleared the way for New York to use its current congressional map in the 2026 elections. Alito appeared to be, according to Shapiro, either “forecasting” a future ruling in which the court will hold Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional or “corral[ling] the votes for just that outcome.” Contributor Corner Does legislative history have a judicial future? In his Major Questions column, Adam White reflected on the role of legislative history, such as Senate and House committee reports or floor debates, in judicial opinions, explaining why he believes “[t]he next few years might see an uptick in debates over the possible uses and misuses” of this approach. A Closer Look: Separate Writings During her remarks at the Library of Congress on Thursday, March 12, Justice Amy Coney Barrett shed light on a question that sometimes comes up on Supreme Court opinion days, including on Feb. 20, when the court released its tariffs ruling: How does a justice decide when to write a separate opinion? The tariffs case raised this question because it included not only the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and the principal dissent by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but also five other separate writings. Barrett and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the majority opinion in full, each wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Elena Kagan wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson wrote her own solo opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. And although Justice Clarence Thomas (along with Justice Samuel Alito) joined Kavanaugh’s dissent, he also wrote his own solo dissent. These writings added up to more than 160 pages and exposed rifts in the court over the major questions doctrine – that is, the principle that the executive branch cannot address major policy questions without clear direction from Congress. The six justices in the majority clashed both with the three dissenting justices and, to a certain extent, with each other. Gorsuch, in particular, seemed frustrated with everyone, prompting David French to call his concurring opinion the “Festivus Concurrence” on the Advisory Opinions podcast. The concurrences and dissents in the tariffs case called to mind an earlier era in Supreme Court history when separate writings were not just common but expected. For roughly the first decade of its existence, the court would resolve cases with seriatim opinions – that is, a collection of separate opinions from the justices, rather than a single opinion of the court. Once these opinions were published, “the lawyers would have to count the justices to try to figure out what propositions of law did the majority support and which propositions were dictum” (not essential to the decision and therefore not establishing a precedent), according to Justia. Chief Justice John Marshall, who served from 1801 to 1835, convinced his colleagues to end this practice and instead come together behind a single opinion of the court. During her Thursday remarks, Barrett reflected on the significance of this change, noting that Marshall also persuaded his colleagues to forgo all separate writing in most cases. “Concurrences and dissents were actually quite rare, which I think is part of what enabled him to establish the court’s strength,” Barrett said. Today, separate writings are relatively common, although the court is nowhere near a return to the seriatim approach. During the 2024-25 term, there were 50 concurring opinions and 48 dissenting opinions written, in addition to the 67 opinions of the court. At the Library of Congress event, Barrett was asked by Judge Robert M. Dow., Jr., who is counselor to the chief justice and who interviewed Barrett on stage, about how she decides when to write separately. Barrett explained that sometimes it’s not her choice, because the most senior justice in the group of dissenters can assign dissents to her. When it’s up to her, Barrett said, she will only write separately for a few key reasons. “I try not to write [separate opinions] too frequently. I kind of like the way John Marshall said seriatim opinions are out. I generally try to just let the majority opinion speak for the court,” she said. “But sometimes I will write a concurrence or my own dissent if I have something that I feel like I should explain, something about my position that I feel like warrants explanation so that it doesn’t look inconsistent. If I don’t join the full opinion,” Barrett continued, “I usually write to say why. And if I feel like I have something to say that would add to the development of the law, something that I hope that lawyers and other courts will think about or that law professors might help us by writing about or doing some research in, that’s the situation in which I will write a concurrence.” “I try to resist the temptation to write one because I feel like I could have said what the majority said better,” Barrett added. In the tariffs case, Barrett appeared to be focused on the first goal: explaining herself. Indeed, she noted at the beginning of her four-page concurring opinion that she was writing separately to address Gorsuch’s characterization of the major questions doctrine and then went on to defend her view that it is “best understood as an ordinary application of textualism.” You can watch the full conversation between Barrett and Dow on YouTube. SCOTUS Quote MR. KIM: “Trespassers target vacant homes just like this one. And indeed, they sometimes engage in the types of activities that we see here.” JUSTICE GINSBURG: “Were the – were the tips anonymous?” MR. KIM: “No, Your Honor. There are names in the arrest report, Your Honor. So –“­ JUSTICE BREYER: “I mean, the – I am told, perhaps I shouldn’t take this into account, but compared to the Middle Ages with which I am more familiar –” — Justice Stephen Breyer in District of Columbia v. Wesby (2017) The post SCOTUStoday: Trump v. the Fed appeared first on SCOTUSblog.