Do you like piña coladas? What about getting caught in the rain? We here at SCOTUSblog liked discovering this week that Rupert Holmes, the man who wrote and recorded “Escape (The Pina Colada Song),” has written a play about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
At the Court
On Wednesday, the court released two opinions: In Rico v. United States, the court held that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 does not authorize a rule automatically extending a defendant’s term of supervised release when the defendant fails to report to a probation officer. In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the court held that a company is not liable for copyright infringement for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.
Also on Wednesday, the justices heard argument in Flowers Foods v. Brock, on whether “last-mile” drivers – drivers who deliver from a regional warehouse to a store – are exempt from the arbitration requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act.
On Friday, 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.
Next Wednesday, April 1, we will be live blogging as the Supreme Court hears argument in Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case. To learn more about the case, join our LinkedIn Live event with Briefly today at noon EDT.
Morning Reads
Navarro: Trump will still raise tariffs to 15 percent
Daniel Desrochers, Sam Sutton, and Victoria Guida, Politico
Peter Navarro, a senior trade adviser to President Donald Trump, said Wednesday that “Trump still intends to raise his current set of global tariffs to 15 percent, more than a month after the president pledged it would happen,” according to Politico. “It has happened, at least it’s in process to happen. … I wouldn’t get too lost in the details on that,” Navarro said. He added that the Supreme Court’s February ruling striking down the tariffs Trump imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act “was the best possible outcome, because the justices ratified and affirmed the use of every other statute we’ve been using to implement tariffs.” Politico noted that “[t]he majority’s decision did not explicitly take a position on other trade laws.”
Maryland Supreme Court Strikes Down Local Climate Suit Against Big Oil
Karen Zraick, The New York Times
The Maryland Supreme Court on Tuesday “ruled against reviving climate lawsuits brought by Baltimore, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County that were struck down by lower courts,” holding that “federal law overrides state law on air pollution that crossed state lines.” Through the lawsuits against “26 multinational oil and gas companies,” those governments sought “to recover damages caused by the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, accusing them of deceiving the public about the dangers of using their products.” Around “three dozen similar lawsuits have been filed nationwide in the past decade,” and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument next term in one such case out of Colorado. “The question before the justices in that case mirrors the central one in Maryland, namely whether federal law ‘precludes state law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused’ by greenhouse gas emissions.”
Judicial Conduct Panel Denies Newman’s Reinstatement Bid
Michael Shapiro, Bloomberg Law
On Tuesday, the Judicial Conference’s administrative committee, which is comprised of “seven appellate and district court judges,” denied 98-year-old “Pauline Newman’s effort to regain her position on the Federal Circuit,” where she “has been blocked from getting new case assignments for nearly three years” after refusing “to undergo a neuropsychological exam and to turn over certain medical records,” according to Bloomberg Law. The committee’s decision on Newman’s administrative challenge to her suspension arrived as “the nation’s oldest active federal judge” waits for word from the Supreme Court on if it will take up her legal challenge to her colleagues’ actions.
State of Oklahoma sued over rejection of Jewish charter school
Nuria Martinez-Keel, Oklahoma Voice
Last year, the Supreme Court considered a Catholic virtual charter school’s bid to become the country’s first religious charter school and ultimately deadlocked 4-4 – Justice Amy Coney Barrett had recused herself – leaving an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling against the school in place. But this week, “[l]egal efforts to found the nation’s first religious charter school in Oklahoma have reignited,” and Oklahoma’s attorney general and Statewide Charter School Board are facing a new lawsuit over a Jewish charter’s schools effort to operate in the state, according to Oklahoma Voice. The Jewish school’s “founders allege religious groups are wrongfully excluded from opening charter schools with faith-based instruction – a similar argument Oklahoma Catholic leaders made when trying to establish St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.”
Roberts tasked with trying to tame Supreme Court
Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld, The Hill
In the latest edition of their newsletter for The Hill, Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld highlighted a few hiccups during this week’s oral arguments – that is, moments when Chief Justice John Roberts and others seemed frustrated with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson for “dominat[ing] discussions” and, in Sotomayor’s case, repeatedly interrupting one of the advocates. They noted that Roberts “was more assertive” than usual this week in his effort “to steer and balance” court sessions by, for example, cutting off one of Sotomayor’s interruptions.
On Site
Argument Analysis
Justices dubious about “harsh” rules for omissions by bankrupt debtors
Tuesday’s argument in Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction displayed a bench almost uniformly skeptical of a lower court’s absolute standard for responding to the failure of a debtor in bankruptcy to mention one of its assets to that court, according to Ronald Mann.
Case Preview
Justices to hear argument on whether a crime’s “contemplated effects” can expand venue beyond where offense was committed
The Supreme Court will hear argument on Monday in Abouammo v. United States, in which it will consider whether federal prosecutors can try a defendant not only in the district where the offense actually occurred, but also in the district where the crime’s “contemplated effects” are felt.
Case Preview
Court to consider ability of federal courts to confirm arbitration awards
Next week’s argument in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties considers a technical question about the jurisdiction of federal courts to enforce an arbitration award. The question is whether a federal court that has a pending case over which it had jurisdiction to compel arbitration can use that jurisdiction to entertain a motion to confirm the arbitration award.
Contributor Corner
The Supreme Court and voting identification
In his Courtly Observations column, Erwin Chemerinsky revisited past cases in which the Supreme Court addressed voter identification requirements and fees associated with voting, reflecting on what role these cases could play in a potential future lawsuit over the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which has passed the House but stalled in the Senate.
Podcasts
Amarica’s Constitution
Created to Born to Barbara
Akhil Reed Amar and Andy Lipka visit a high school in Garden City, New York, to speak with high school students about Akhil’s book, Born Equal. They trace one of America’s great credos – “All Men Are Created Equal” – from the founding, all the way to Lincoln, and beyond, to the 14th Amendment; and finally to birthright citizenship and next week’s Supreme Court case.
Wells v. Guerrero
In July 2013, Amos Wells killed his pregnant girlfriend and their unborn child, as well as his girlfriend’s mother and younger brother. More than three years later, in November 2016, he was convicted of capital murder, and the sentencing phase of his trial began.
In Texas, where the murders and Wells’ trial took place, jurors weighing whether to impose the death penalty are asked to consider the “probability that the Defendant [will] commit criminal acts of violence” in the future and “sufficient mitigating circumstance[s]” from the defendant’s life that may justify imposing a sentence of life without parole instead. Defense attorneys can call witnesses to address these considerations, such as mental health experts or a defendant’s loved ones.
During the sentencing phase of Wells’ trial, his legal team called one such witness to discuss Wells’ genetic makeup. The genetic expert described a mutation in Wells’ Monoamine Oxidase A gene that leads to reduced metabolism of serotonin, explaining that, when combined with the “semi traumatic environment” that Wells grew up in, this gene mutation “contribut[ed] to ‘a greater likelihood that [Wells] could have explosive and violent outbursts in his lifetime.’” In a memorandum, Wells’ counsel acknowledged that this testimony could backfire if it appeared to confirm that Wells posed a continuing threat to society, but said the goal was to “diminish[] his perceived culpability” by highlighting factors he couldn’t control that may have led to the murders.
On Nov. 18, 2016, the jury sentenced Wells to death. He’s spent much of the past nine years challenging this sentence and his conviction, although with little success. In July 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit denied his request for a certificate of appealability based on his legal team’s decision to have the genetic expert testify. Wells contends that the team’s decision was misguided enough to violate the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel, and he’s asked the Supreme Court to weigh in.
In his petition for review, Wells’ current legal team called the genetic expert’s testimony “devastating.” To avoid a death sentence, they explained, Wells needed “to convince the jury that evidence of his future dangerousness was outweighed by evidence of mitigation.” Instead, “the defense’s own expert testified, based on debunked science, that petition had a genetic ‘defect’ that made him many times more likely than others to commit violent offenses.”
The petition acknowledged that the Supreme Court has previously recognized that a defense team can concede guilt in a capital trial when doing so can “reasonably be expected to yield corresponding strategic advantages for the defendant at sentencing.” But no such advantages were present in this case, Wells’ team contended.
In their brief opposing Supreme Court review, Texas officials argued that the 5th Circuit was correct to deny Wells a certificate of appealability. Wells’ legal team’s “informed decision” to have the genetic expert testify, they wrote, was part of a “substantial mitigation case that centered on the traumatic nature of Wells’s upbringing,” not a concession of his “future dangerousness.” Texas officials further argued that Wells’ case is not worthy of the court’s time because it raises “no conflict among the courts of appeals, no departure from accepted and usual judicial standards, and no important question of federal law” warranting the court’s intervention.
In his reply brief, Wells’ legal team emphasized that even “strategic” decisions by counsel can be scrutinized under the Sixth Amendment. “Respondent quibbles about whether the evidence amounted to a concession [of dangerousness], but for confirmation one need look no further than the prosecution itself, which repeatedly and vigorously argued to the jury—without contradiction from the court—that it could find future dangerousness based on petitioner’s evidence alone.”
The petition for review in Wells v. Guerrero is scheduled to be considered by the justices for the first time at their private conference tomorrow.
SCOTUS Quote
MS. BENNETT: “Sure. So this question came up in 1925.”
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “I didn’t remember that.”
— Flowers Foods v. Brock (2026)
The post SCOTUStoday for Thursday, March 26 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.