Supreme Court temporarily blocks full SNAP benefits even as they'd started to go out; Indiana Public Media, NPR, November 7, 2025

 Jennifer Ludden , Indiana Public Media, NPR; Supreme Court temporarily blocks full SNAP benefits even as they'd started to go out

"The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily granted the Trump administration's request to block full SNAP food benefits during the government shutdown, even as residents in some states had already begun receiving them.

The Trump administration is appealing a court order to fully restart the country's largest anti-hunger program. The high court decision late Friday gives a lower court time to consider a more lasting pause.

The move may add to confusion, though, since the government said it was sending states money on Friday to fully fund SNAP at the same time it appealed the order to pay for them.

Shortly after U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. issued that decision Thursday afternoon, states started to announce they'd be issuing full SNAP benefits. Some people woke up Friday with the money already on the debit-like EBT cards they use to buy groceries. The number of states kept growing, and included California, Oregon, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Connecticut among others.

The Supreme Court's decision means states must, for now, revert back to the partial payments the Trump administration had earlier instructed them to distribute. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the administration's request for an administrative stay, the appeals court said it would consider the request for the stay and intends to issue a decision as quickly as possible.

Funding for the nation's largest anti-hunger program ran out a week ago, as the federal shutdown entered its second month. States, cities and food banks have been ramping up donations desperately trying to fill the gap. Nearly 42 million people rely on SNAP, most of them extremely low-income families with children, along with seniors, or people with disabilities.

In his order, Judge McConnell admonished the government for deciding earlier in the week to make only partial SNAP payments. He said officials failed to consider the "needless suffering" that would cause millions of people who rely on that aid. He also suggested they had delayed the partial payments for "political reasons.""

Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works; IP Watchdog, November 3, 2025

 ROSE ESFANDIARI , IP Watchdog; Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works

"On Friday, October 31, Professors Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, Lawrence Lessig and a number of other professors and researchers filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, urging the Court to grant certiorari and recognize copyright protection for works generated by artificial intelligence (AI).

The brief argued that “excluding AI-generated works from copyright protection threatens the foundations of American creativity, innovation, and economic growth,” warning that the lower court’s interpretation, which requires human authorship, disregards the “spirit of the Copyright Act.”"

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Let Him Fire the Top Copyright Official; The New York Times, October 27, 2025

 Ann E. Marimow, The New York Times; Trump Asks Supreme Court to Let Him Fire the Top Copyright Official

"The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the president to remove the government’s top copyright official after a lower court allowed her to remain in her post that is part of the Library of Congress.

President Trump ordered the removal in May of Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights, along with the librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, who did not challenge her dismissal.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has repeatedly allowed Mr. Trump to fire the leaders of independent agencies even as they fight their dismissals in court, allowing him to seize greater control of the federal bureaucracy.

The administration made the request after a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with Ms. Perlmutter, the head of the U.S. Copyright Office. The majority said the register is unique within the legislative branch and that her role is to advise Congress on issues related to copyright."

How a Single Court Case Could Determine the Future of Book Banning in America; Literary Hub, June 17, 2025

Anthony Aycock, Literary Hub; How a Single Court Case Could Determine the Future of Book Banning in America

"Bottom line: in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi–the states covered by the Fifth Circuit–libraries are free to remove books for any reason. 

The plaintiffs now face a choice: accept the Fifth Circuit’s ruling or appeal to the Supreme Court. If there is an appeal, the court may not accept it. Over 7,000 cases are appealed to the high court each year, and it hears only 100-150–less than two percent. Yet I think Little v. Llano County has a good chance of making the docket. 

For one thing, the Fifth Circuit’s en banc reversal of its own panel’s ruling suggests the need for the high court to step in. Second, this Supreme Court has been eager to revisit earlier precedents. In the last few years, it has curtailed abortion protections, ended Chevron deference, and canceled affirmative action in college admissions–all long-standing, seemingly bedrock principles. Why not target Pico, especially since it wasn’t a decisive ruling to begin with?

Third, unlike most book ban cases, Little pertains not to a school library but a public one. Public libraries, according to UCLA professor Eugene Volokh, are not like school libraries. “I tentatively think a public school,” Volokh wrote, “is entitled to decide which viewpoints to promote through its own library,” whereas public libraries “are much more about giving more options to readers, rather than about teaching particular skills and attitudes to students.” 

Public libraries also serve more people–an entire county rather than a school system. Remember Judge Duncan’s belief that anyone who wants a certain book “can buy it or borrow it from somewhere else”? Llano County is small and rural, and many of its residents may not have the purchase option. For them, a book being unavailable in a library is a de facto ban. The pro-library organization EveryLibrary agrees, writing that the Fifth Circuit’s opinion “reveals an indifference to the lived reality of millions of Americans for whom public libraries are their only or primary means of access to books.” 

Here’s hoping that, if Little or any other book ban case ends up before this Supreme Court, those nine justices will consider the issue thoughtfully, creatively, and most important, impartially."

Inside the Supreme Court Ethics Debate: Who Judges the Justices?; The New York Times, December 3, 2024

Jodi Kantor and Abbie VanSickle, The New York Times; Inside the Supreme Court Ethics Debate: Who Judges the Justices?

"As the summer of 2023 ended, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court began trading even-more-confidential-than-usual memos, avoiding their standard email list and instead passing paper documents in envelopes to each chambers. Faced with ethics controversies and a plunge in public trust, they were debating rules for their own conduct, according to people familiar with the process.

Weeks later, as a united front, they announced the results: the court’s first-ever ethics code. “It’s remarkable that we were able to agree unanimously,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said in a television interview this year.

But a New York Times examination found that behind the scenes, the court had divided over whether the justices’ new rules could — or should — ever be enforced."

New Clarence Thomas ethics questions about forgiveness on luxury RV loan; NPR, October 25, 2023

Nina Totenberg, NPR; New Clarence Thomas ethics questions about forgiveness on luxury RV loan

"The drip, drip, drip of new ethics questions about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's ethics continued Wednesday. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., disclosed that documents turned over to the committee indicate that Thomas benefitted by having some or all of a $267,000 loan forgiven in order to purchase a luxury RV."

Federal judge takes rare step of backing U.S. Supreme Court ethics code; Reuters, May 26, 2022

 Nate Raymond, Reuters; Federal judge takes rare step of backing U.S. Supreme Court ethics code

"Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton told attendees of a conference in Chicago focused on threats to the independence of the courts that it was "unimaginable that we have a segment of our federal judiciary that's not subject to an ethics code.""

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts gives an incomplete history lesson on judicial ethics; NBC News, January 4, 2022

Steven Lubet, Williams Memorial Professor at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, NBC News ; Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts gives an incomplete history lesson on judicial ethics

In his end of the year report, Roberts' argument for the court's independence from oversight omitted a key part of its history.

"His comments come amid increased calls for the Supreme Court to be subject to a code of ethics, like all other U.S. courts. As chief justice, though, Roberts has consistently defended the court’s refusal to adopt one, rejecting all suggestions of congressional or other oversight. His referring to Taft’s support for judicial independence seems to bolster that argument. But the story Roberts presented is oddly incomplete, omitting a crucial aspect of Taft’s legacy: Taft also believed that judges should be accountable for their conduct according to ethical standards developed outside the judiciary – a proposition that Roberts has politely but firmly rejected...

Another financial scandal, resulting in the resignation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas in 1969, spurred the ABA to re-examine the by-then-antiquated canons. The ABA promulgated the much-strengthened Code of Judicial Conduct in 1972. The Judicial Conference of the United States, with authority over the lower federal courts, officially adopted the code in 1973, as did every state judiciary in the following years. Though the code itself doesn’t include penalties, violations can lead to discipline in some circumstances.

That progress stopped at the Supreme Court steps. The Supreme Court has declined for over 50 years to adopt the Judicial Conference code, or any other, making it the only court in the U.S.without a formal set of ethics rules."

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees; NPR, June 15, 2020

Nina Totenberg , NPR; Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring sex discrimination in the workplace protects LGBTQ employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation. 

The vote was 6-3 with conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch joining the court's four liberal justices in the majority. 

The opinion is available here."

An unseemly meeting at the US Supreme Court raises ethics questions; Quartz, November 2, 2019

Ephrat Livni, Quartz; An unseemly meeting at the US Supreme Court raises ethics questions

"“A case isn’t finished until the opinion is out,” Roth noted. So, any meeting between a justice and an advocate who has expressed positions on a matter is problematic because it undermines public trust in the judge’s ability to be fair. He calls these engagements failures of a “basic ethics test” and is concerned about how commonly these failures occur...

Roth believes that everyone, whatever their political party or ideological tendencies, should be concerned about these kinds of engagements by the justices. And he doesn’t think it’s too much to ask that members of the bench not interact with the people and institutions who’ve broadcast their views in amicus briefs while those cases are open, if only to maintain that precious appearance of neutrality."

The Supreme Court Denies Domino’s Petition in a Win for Disability Rights; Slate, October 7, 2019

Aaron Mak, Slate; The Supreme Court Denies Domino’s Petition in a Win for Disability Rights

"On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down an order announcing it would not take up a petition from the Domino’s pizza chain to appeal a lower-court decision dictating that the company must make its website and app accessible to people with disabilities. The decision is a major win for disability rights advocates, who have been arguing that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to websites, digital platforms, and other nonphysical spaces."

Why We Need a Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court; Time, October 1, 2019

Alicia Bannon and Johanna Kalb, Time; Why We Need a Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court

"Alicia Bannon is the co-author of Supreme Court Ethics: The Need for an Ethics Code and Additional Transparency. Bannon is the managing director of the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program and head of its Fair Courts team.

Johanna Kalb is the co-author of Supreme Court Ethics: The Need for an Ethics Code and Additional Transparency. Kalb is a fellow at the Brennan Center and associate dean and professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law."

"Judges are supposed to take steps to avoid even the appearance of bias or political activity. But over the last twenty years, we’ve seen Supreme Court justices engage in activities forbidden under the code of ethics for other federal judges. Members of the Court have given partisan speeches. They have failed to recuse themselves from cases with which they have apparent conflicts of interest. Some have accepted lavish gifts from people and organizations who also fund constitutional litigation...

Of course, having a code of conduct isn’t a cure-all, whether the code applies to judges, professors, or CEOs. But it’s vital for transparency and accountability. By adopting a code of ethics that is publicly available, the Court would shape expectations among judges and the public about acceptable behavior. A code would anticipate and give guidance on knotty ethical dilemmas, and also help to protect the justices against criticism for the tricky ethical decisions they make. And if the justices slip up, a code would allow them to be held accountable, by each other, in the court of public opinion and, in very rare instances, through impeachment."

Criticized Team Names Get a Legal Lift, but the Price Could Be High; New York Times, June 19, 2017

Ken Belson, New York Times; Criticized Team Names Get a Legal Lift, but the Price Could Be High

"After years of mounting disapproval involving one of the N.F.L.’s most established and lucrative brands, the Redskins cheered the ruling, which the team most likely will use to seek the restoration of trademark protections the government took away in 2014 on the grounds the nickname was offensive.

“I am THRILLED!” the team’s owner, Dan Snyder, said in a statement. “Hail to the Redskins.”...

Still, while those who have resisted name changes might see a symbolic lift from the court, they will have to weigh whether keeping their names hurts their image or even their bottom line.

“What the Supreme Court has said is you don’t have to change your name if you don’t want to, because you can protect it with a federally protected trademark,” said Josh Schiller, a lawyer at Boies Schiller Flexner in New York who specializes in sports and media law. “But culturally, it is important to consider whether the name still offends people, and whether it will build good will around the mark.”"