Tidbits by Scotty: SCOTUStoday for Monday, January 12

Monday, January 12, 2026

SCOTUStoday for Monday, January 12

Today marks the start of the court’s January argument session. The court will hear seven arguments over the next 10 days on such issues as transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, gun rights, and President Donald Trump’s bid to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.

SCOTUS Quick Hits

The Supreme Court released an opinion on Friday, but perhaps not the one you were expecting. The 5-4 ruling was in Bowe v. United States, a case on a federal prisoner’s efforts to obtain post-conviction relief. In an opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court held that a federal law instructing courts to dismiss a claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application does not apply to motions filed by federal prisoners. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined in full by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Also on Friday, the court indicated that it may announce opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST. SCOTUSblog will be live blogging any opinion announcements beginning at 9:30.
Friday afternoon, the court announced that it had granted review in five cases. For more on these disputes, see the On Site section below.
This morning, the court is expected to release an order list with denied petitions and other case updates at 9:30 a.m. EST.
The justices will hear argument today in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, on the circumstances in which a federal contractor can transfer a case from state to federal court. Justice Samuel Alito will not participate because he has a financial interest in ConocoPhillips, which is the parent company of one of the defendants.
Tomorrow, the justices will hear arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., on laws barring transgender athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams. We will be live blogging the arguments beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST.

Morning Reads

Eyes are on Gorsuch as Supreme Court weighs rights of trans athletes (Julian Mark, The Washington Post)(Paywall) — In 2020, Justice Neil Gorsuch “wrote one of the Supreme Court’s most consequential rulings expanding legal rights for gay and transgender people” in a case on employment discrimination. Now, “Gorsuch is again in the spotlight,” according to The Washington Post, as the court considers two disputes over laws preventing transgender athletes from competing in women’s and girls’ sports. The law’s opponents are drawing on that 2020 ruling as they try to persuade Gorsuch to protect transgender athletes, per the Post, while the law’s supporters argue that “sports is different from the workplace.”
Supreme Court, Swamped by Emergencies, Neglects Rest of Docket (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)(Paywall) — The court’s Friday ruling in Bowe v. United States has the distinction of being the first opinion in an argued case to be released this term. The fact that it didn’t arrive until January is notable, because “[o]ver the last 80 years, the Supreme Court has only once before waited until January to issue its first opinion in an argued case,” according to The New York Times. Experts specializing in Supreme Court advocacy told the Times that “a spike in action on the court’s other docket,” where the justices address requests for interim relief, “seems to have diverted the court from its merits docket,” slowing the pace of opinions.
These are the books families opted-out of after Supreme Court fight (Talia Richman, The Baltimore Banner) — In a June 27 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the “Supreme Court sided with a group of parents [in Montgomery County, Maryland] who sought the right to opt-out of lessons that included LGBTQ storybooks,” holding that refusing such opt-out requests violates religious freedom. Since then, according to The Baltimore Banner, “[i]n a district of more than 156,000 students, just 56 families asked Montgomery County school leaders to excuse their child from reading books that conflict with their religious beliefs.” These requests mostly came from “the parents of elementary schoolers” and “generally centered around books with LGBTQ characters, as well as those that included themes of diversity.”
Lawsuits by Trump allies could shape how the 2030 census is done and who will be counted (Mike Schneider, Associated Press) — “The next U.S. census is four years away,” but legal battles over it have already begun, according to the Associated Press. “Allies of President Donald Trump are behind the federal lawsuits challenging various aspects of the once-a-decade count by the U.S. Census Bureau,” including the inclusion of noncitizens. “The first Trump administration also attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire, a move that was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch: Happy New Hires (David Lat, Original Jurisdiction) — In a post for his Substack, David Lat offered an update on Supreme Court clerk hiring and highlighted recent research on the jobs clerks typically have before and after working for a justice. He also highlighted various studies about clerkships, including investigations into what factors contribute to judges becoming feeder judges for the Supreme Court, such as the training they offer their clerks, personal relationships, and ideological compatibility.

A Closer Look: When the News Is that There’s No News

Friday was the court’s first day of opinion announcements for the 2025-26 term, and it served as a reminder that there really are no guarantees when it comes to which rulings are released on a given opinion day. After many news outlets focused their court coverage throughout the week on the tariffs case, the one ruling released on Friday was in Bowe v. United States, a dispute over a federal prisoner’s efforts to obtain post-conviction relief.

Friday was also a reminder that even top government attorneys are left in the dark as to what’s coming on an opinion day. As Mark Walsh noted in his latest View from the Court column, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer and others from his office were in the courtroom that morning. When Chief Justice John Roberts gave Justice Sonia Sotomayor the floor to discuss her majority opinion in Bowe, she began by saying, “Seeing who’s here, it’s not the case you thought.”

Several outlets treated the lack of news on tariffs as news in its own right. A headline from Reuters read “US Supreme Court: No ruling on Trump tariffs Friday.” CNBC’s headline was “Supreme Court holds off on Trump tariff ruling for now — what’s at stake for economy.” And Bloomberg TV did a segment titled “Supreme Court Skips Trump Tariff Ruling on Friday.”

The court then sparked a new wave of speculation about the tariffs case when, about an hour after the release of the Bowe decision, it indicated that it may release opinions on Wednesday, Jan. 14. (Of course, we don’t know what rulings – if any – will come that day, just as we didn’t know what was coming on Friday.)

As we await the opinion day on Wednesday, we’ll be reflecting on these words of wisdom from Dan Epps, a law professor at Washington University School of Law who contributes to SCOTUSblog’s Interim Docket Blog: “When you’re waiting for huge opinions, never, ever underestimate the Court’s ability to disappoint you.”

SCOTUS Quote

“[T]he great purposes of the Constitution do not depend on the approval or convenience of those they restrain.”

— Justice Robert Jackson in Everson v. Board of Education

On Site

From the SCOTUSblog Team

The U.S. Supreme Court is shown on April 25, 2022 in Washington, DC.

Supreme Court agrees to hear case on violations of international law

The Supreme Court on Friday added five cases to its oral argument docket (two of which will be argued together). Among the cases granted was Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, on whether two federal laws that allow lawsuits in U.S. courts for torture and serious violations of international law permit private lawsuits for aiding and abetting such conduct.