What's left from SCOTUS, and when to expect it
There are still 20 argued cases awaiting action, with 19 opinions expected. Also: Talking with TPM about Trump's anti-trans attacks. And, for paid subscribers: Closing my tabs.
And just like that, it is mid-June.
At the U.S. Supreme Court, there are still 20 argued cases awaiting action, with 19 opinions expected in those cases. The court is not particularly behind on its release of opinions, and the court does not appear to be in any hurry, either. The justices did not add a day to their opinions schedule for this week (as of now), so the next — and only (as of now) — opinion day this week is Thursday.
What’s going to happen?
I think we are most likely to keep one decision day this coming week, have two decision days the week of June 22, and finish this term’s opinions on June 29. That would leave June 30 or even July 1 for “clean-up orders,” when the court generally addresses a batch of certiorari petitions that have been lingering on the docket — for varying reasons, including awaiting the outcomes of the cases just decided.
There could be an additional opinion day added into the mix — the court, for example, could announce on Thursday that the next decision day is Friday — but an average of 5 decisions each of the upcoming 4 dates would not be unusual for this time of year.
The court doesn’t tell us ahead of time how many decisions will be coming down on any given day, let alone which decisions they are.
Additionally, while the justices announce decisions from the bench (and some justices sometimes also announce their dissents), the court does not livestream those opinion announcements to the public (despite the press corps, including Law Dork, requesting that the justices instruct the court to do so as they have done with oral arguments since the pandemic began). The court, instead, does not make opinion announcements publicly available until they are sent to the National Archives at the start of the next term.
All that said, the cases that are left include many that could result in ground-shifting — if not nation-altering — decisions. (Of course, we’ve already gotten three significant rulings — on tariffs, conversion therapy bans, and the Voting Rights Act.)
What are those cases?
There are only three cases left that were argued in 2025 — meaning they should be coming at any time and there’s likely significant dispute in the cases among the justices:
The case over President Donald Trump’s effort to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause despite congressional for-cause removal protections. Trump is likely to win, and I’ve written previously about how important this case is.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee’s effort to further gut campaign finance laws, challenging limits on coordinated party expenditures. It was an up-in-the-air argument, as Politico’s Andrew Howard and Josh Gerstein reported — but Elena Schneider and Howard also reported since how the parties are already preparing for change.
A case over whether lawsuits can be brought against government officials in their individual capacities under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Amy Howe covered the arguments — and likely loss for the inmate seeking to sue — at SCOTUSblog.
From the January sitting, four arguments and three decisions remain:
The other firing case, over Trump’s effort to fire Lisa Cook as a governor of the Federal Reserve Board, is not likely to turn out as well for Trump — but how, precisely, the court will resolve the case was not exactly clear from arguments.
The arguments over Idaho and West Virginia’s bans on trans girls and women in scholastic sports were not consolidated but will most likely only result in one opinion, and it will likely uphold the laws. Again, though, and as I covered at the time, it was not clear how far the opinion will go.
The case over a provision in Hawaii’s restrictions on concealed carry that prohibits concealed carry on private property open to the public absent explicit permission is given from the property owner. NBC News’s Lawrence Hurley covered the arguments, concluding that the law was likely to be struck down as violating the Second Amendment.
What else remains?
From the February, March, and April arguments, 13 cases remain. Among them are several likely to bring significant decisions:
The birthright citizenship case is obviously front and center. Trump is likely to lose. The questions are how badly and with what sort of an opinion.
The case over then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s effort to end temporary protected status for people in the U.S. from Haiti and Syria.
The challenge to states that allow ballots mailed by Election Day to be counted if received by a certain amount of time after then.
A case over the federal law barring firearm possession by anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The New York Times’s Abbie VanSickle covered the arguments, which featured several justices skeptical of the law’s broad reach.
There also is a notable asylum case, the Roundup case, and the challenge to geofence warrants among the final remaining cases.
On Thursday, and whenever decisions are coming, Law Dork will be on it.
Talking with TPM about the Trump admin’s anti-trans attacks
On Friday, I spoke with TPM’s David Kurtz …
… and we had an important discussion about the ongoing and multifaceted attacks on trans people from the Trump administration. Check it out — and, if you don’t already, Talking Points Memo.
Relatedly, The Advocate’s Christopher Wiggins reported this weekend on a June 12 Department of Veterans Affairs memo that would “eliminate gender identity-based initiatives and strip the LGBTQ+ designation from a network of medical coordinators created to help LGBTQ+ veterans navigate care.“
Law Dork has also obtained and reviewed the memo from John Bartrum, Under Secretary for Health for the Veterans Health Administration. The two primary directives were that:
VHA funds, official time, facilities, or resources may not be used for meetings, training, working groups, promotional materials, events, or any activities promoting gender-ideology or gender-identity. This reminder fully implements the directive in EO 14168 that “Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology” and “[a]gencies shall remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other messages.”
LGBTQ+ Veteran Care Coordinators will be redesignated as Care Coordinators, dedicated to facilitating VA health care and benefits for all Veterans, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Updated role descriptions must be completed within 30 days.
Law Dork will have more as circumstances warrant.
Closing my tabs
For those who don’t know what this is, it’s my effort to give a little thank you to paid subscribers. “Closing my tabs” is, literally, me looking through the stories and cases open — the tabs open — on my computer and sharing with you all some of those I was unable to cover during the week but that I nonetheless want to let you know that I have on my radar. Oftentimes, they are issues that will eventually find their way back into the newsletter as a case discussed moves forward or something new happens that provides me with a reason to cover the story more in depth.
This Sunday, these are the tabs I am closing:
