In case you missed it, yesterday we launched our redesigned website. Read this post to learn more about the new look, and, as always, feel free to reach out to scotusblog@thedispatch.com with questions or concerns. Thank you for your readership and all your help in keeping SCOTUSblog alive and thriving!At the CourtOn Wednesday morning, the court released two opinions. In Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, the court unanimously held that a federal district court did not have the discretion to excuse the late removal of a case from state court to federal court. In Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, a 6-3 court – with Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts in dissent – held that a state-law tort claim filed by Winston Hencely, who was injured during a suicide bombing carried out by an Afghan employee of a federal contractor, was not preempted by federal law.After the opinion announcements, the justices heard argument in Blanche v. Lau, on the rights of lawful permanent residents who have been accused of committing a crime that puts them at risk of being removed from the country.Tomorrow, the justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from that conference are expected on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT.Morning ReadsTrump bashes Supreme Court’s ‘Republican’ justices, says they’ve ‘gone weak, stupid, and bad’Sophie Brams, The HillIn a lengthy Truth Social post on Wednesday, President Donald Trump criticized Republican-appointed justices for not “stick[ing] together” and for “giv[ing] the Democrats win after win,” including in the tariffs case. “[C]ertain ‘Republican’ justices have just gone weak, stupid, and bad, completely violating what they ‘supposedly’ stood for,” the president wrote. As The Hill noted, “Trump has chided the Supreme Court often in recent months, directing much of his frustration toward Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom he appointed to the bench.” In Wednesday’s post, Trump also said that the court “probably will” “rule against our Country on Birthright Citizenship” and referred to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, without naming her, as “that new, Low IQ person, that somehow found her way to the bench.”Breyer Defends Supreme Court as Shadow Docket Scrutiny GrowsJordan Fischer, Bloomberg LawDuring an appearance on Tuesday at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, former Justice Stephen Breyer “defended his former colleagues on the US Supreme Court, saying he doesn’t believe any justice is serving to advance a political agenda,” according to Bloomberg Law. “I do not think there’s some kind of plot involved within the court to get this or that decided,” he said. Breyer specifically addressed the controversy surrounding the court’s unexplained emergency docket rulings, contending that offering explanations “could lock justices into early views before the factual record is fully developed.” “Once you’ve written, you are wedded—not a hundred percent, but pretty much,” Breyer said.Scoop: DeSantis "begging" Trump for prime role in administrationMarc Caputo, AxiosCiting six unnamed sources, Axios reported on Tuesday that “President Trump has told confidants that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is ‘begging’ for a job in Trump’s administration — including attorney general.” DeSantis, who will leave office in January, “also has expressed interest in being secretary of defense and even a spot on the U.S. Supreme Court.” One source told Axios that “DeSantis and conservative Justice Clarence Thomas ... ‘almost have a father-son relationship.’” A spokesperson for DeSantis told Axios that “[s]ome in the media prefer to focus on fake rumors rather than the many accomplishments of Florida’s partnership with the Trump administration.”Texas can require public schools to display Ten Commandments in classrooms, court rulesJamie Stengle, Associated PressThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Tuesday ruled that “Texas can require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools,” holding that such displays do not violate the religious freedom of parents or students, according to the Associated Press. “No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them, or affirm their divine origin,” said the 9-8 ruling, which “reverse[d] a lower federal court ruling that had blocked about a dozen Texas school districts ... from putting up the posters” printed with the Ten Commandments. “The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that challenged the Texas law on behalf of parents said in a statement that they anticipate appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.”US appeals court calls 158-year-old home distilling ban constitutional, creates splitJonathan Stempel, Reuters (paywalled)In a 2-1 ruling on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit “upheld the constitutionality of a nearly 158-year-old federal ban on home distilling, 11 days after a different appeals court came to the opposite conclusion,” according to Reuters. The 6th Circuit “called the ban a ‘necessary and proper means’ of collecting federal excise tax on distilled spirits,” noting that “Congress had ample reason to conclude that many at-home distillers would not pay the tax.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, on the other hand, “had said [the ban] actually reduced revenue by preventing distilling in the first place.” Lawyers for the challenger in the 6th Circuit case “said he will appeal Tuesday’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could resolve the circuit split.”On SiteCase PreviewCourt to hear argument on law enforcement’s use of “geofence warrants”The Supreme Court will hear oral argument next week in Chatrie v. United States, which concerns a Virginia man who was convicted of bank robbery. Okello Chatrie contended in the lower courts that the government violated the Fourth Amendment when it obtained his location from his cellphone records, which put Chatrie in the vicinity of the robbery. The lower courts rejected that argument, but now the justices will weigh in. Contributor CornerThe emergency docket’s mistaken birthdayIn her Ratio Decidendi column, Stephanie Barclay reflected on The New York Times’ publication over the weekend of “a trove of internal Supreme Court memoranda from February 2016,” noting that reporters and some commentators have referred to the decision addressed in those memos as “the birth of the court’s modern ‘shadow docket.’” Those proclamations are “wrong,” Barclay contended, as the court had blocked “an executive branch regulatory program” over two years earlier on its “shadow docket.” A Closer Look:Broadnax v. TexasThis Closer Look expands on the case description Kelsey wrote for her article on recent petitions for review involving public figures.Last fall, a growing debate in legal circles over using rap lyrics as evidence spilled over into public view when a federal judge weighed in on the high-profile rap battle between Drake and Kendrick Lamar. In dismissing Drake’s effort to hold their shared record label accountable for defamation and harassment, U.S. District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas emphasized that claims made in diss tracks are purposely “heated,” “loaded,” and contain “violent imagery,” and should be treated as “nonactionable opinion.”Drake has since appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, prompting legal scholars from across the country to file amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs in recent weeks urging the 2nd Circuit to affirm the lower court and, in that way, prevent rap lyrics from becoming key courtroom evidence. They warned that treating them as such risks promoting “racial bias and prejudice” because rap lyrics in general – not just diss tracks – are often written by Black artists.As the 2nd Circuit considers those arguments, the Supreme Court is weighing similar assertions made by rappers who are urging the justices to hear the case of James Garfield Broadnax, a death row inmate in Texas.Broadnax was convicted in 2009 for the murders of music producers Stephen Swan and Matthew Butler. During the sentencing phase of his trial, prosecutors introduced “over 40 pages of his handwritten rap lyrics” to the predominately white jury, arguing that the lyrics showed his propensity toward violence.In his petition for review, Broadnax describes the lyrics as “racially inflammatory” and inappropriately prejudicial evidence, and he accuses prosecutors of “exploit[ing] racial stereotypes commonly associated with rap lyrics and the Black community to transform Mr. Broadnax’s artistic expression into a death warrant.” Broadnax asks the justices to take up his case and hold that the introduction of the lyrics rendered his sentencing “fundamentally unfair.”Last month, two friend-of-the-court briefs were filed in support of Broadnax by hip-hop artists, including Travis Scott, T.I., and Killer Mike, and several music scholars. The rappers explained that, although rap is incredibly popular, it’s often misunderstood. “[R]ap music’s characteristics as a genre, divorced from context, uniquely position it to be abused by prosecutors against criminal defendants and increase the likelihood that juries will be influenced to convict or inflict harsher sentences on improper grounds,” Scott contended. In an interview about the briefs with The New York Times, Killer Mike said that violent lyrics are “an interpretation of the human spirit ... not an admission of guilt.”In their brief in opposition to Broadnax’s petition for review, Texas officials contended that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to consider his case, because “[t]he court below dismissed the claims for which Broadnax seeks review on an adequate and independent state-law ground without reaching the merits.” Even if his case was within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, they continued, “nothing Broadnax presents warrants” the justices’ attention.The petition for review in Broadnax v. Texas is expected to be addressed during the justices’ private conference on Friday. Broadnax’s execution is scheduled for April 30.SCOTUS QuoteMR. DVORETZKY: “And, look, I'm not going to be the lawyer who stands here and tell – tells you what the Court will or won't do in an April argument, but I think this would be an – an appropriate case in which to DIG [dismiss the case as improvidently granted] –”(Laughter.)JUSTICE KAGAN: “You should have been here yesterday.”(Laughter.)MR. DVORETZKY: “An appropriate case in which to DIG rather than take on these questions.”CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “Just to be clear, we will take appropriate action without regard to –”(Laughter.)CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “– without regard to the calendar.”— Blanche v. Lau (2026)