The Gavel: Courts become Trump’s only backstop 

Happy Wednesday. Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill’s new weekly look at the intersection of courts and national politics. 

We’re Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee, The Hill’s courts team. For months, we’ve sat in courtrooms with the president as he attempted to fend off four criminal indictments and a barrage of civil litigation. 

Now that Trump is back in the White House, he’s become a defendant again, but in scores of lawsuits involving challenges to his administration’s sweeping executive agenda — and his once-personal defense attorneys have become Justice Department prosecutors. 

Increasingly, courtrooms have become the epicenter of the political arena. With Republicans in unified control of Congress and the White House, the judiciary has emerged as the most formidable backstop to Trump. 

Just Tuesday, federal judges indefinitely blocked the Trump administration’s freeze of federal funding and Trump’s refugee ban. 

It’s just a snippet of the roughly 100 lawsuits challenging major administration actions barely a month past Trump’s inauguration. 

Birthright citizenship. Elon Musk. Foreign aid. Diversity programs. Refugee ban. Federal workforce buyouts. FBI agents on Jan. 6 cases. Transgender athletes. Independent agency firings. Research funding cuts. 

The list goes on and will grow as the president’s first 100 days take shape. 

Just Tuesday, federal judges indefinitely blocked the Trump administration’s freeze of federal funding and Trump’s refugee ban. 

It’s just a snippet of the roughly 100 lawsuits challenging major administration actions barely a month past Trump’s inauguration. 

Portions of this weekly look will focus on the Supreme Court. We track every movement on the high court’s docket — the roughly 5,000 petitions to take up cases, 60 opinions and hundreds of emergency applications each year. 

When the court is in session, each week you can expect: 

• Cert Watch: A look-ahead at the cases the justices may take up at its next weekly, closed-door conference 

• In/Out: The Order List: A look-back at what the justices decided at the most recent conference 

• Bench Banter: A data-driven analysis of what the justices are saying during oral arguments, and why it matters 

• Coverage of every Supreme Court opinion and major emergency application 

In addition to SCOTUS coverage, expect from us a schedule of major proceedings in courtrooms across the country in cases influencing the political scene, deep dives on the lawyers and plaintiffs bringing cases to the judiciary and sharp analysis of what it all means for the state of our nation. 

You can also follow us on social media for updates and send us news tips via email or Signal (we’ll keep you anonymous!). 

X: @ByEllaLee / Bluesky: @byellalee.bsky.social / Email: elee@thehill.com / Signal: elee.03 

X: @ZachASchonfeld / Bluesky: @zschonfeld.bsky.social  / Email: zschonfeld@thehill.com / Signal: zachschonfeld.48 

Without further ado, let’s dive in: 

Decisions, Decisions

The Supreme Court on Tuesday released two opinions. More are expected Wednesday morning at 10 a.m. 

Execution (Glossip v. Oklahoma) 

Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma death row inmate who claimed alongside the state itself that his trial was unfair, will receive a new trial and be spared execution after the justices agreed his due process rights were violated.  

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, fully joined by four other justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett partially joined it, agreeing that Glossip’s due process rights were violated but suggesting she would have sent the case back to a lower court for further consideration. And Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent joined by Justice Samuel Alito.  

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate, likely because he heard the case while serving on a lower court.  

The decision marks a rare victory for a death row inmate at the high court, which typically does not intervene in such cases. 

Read more here. 

Attorneys’ fees (Lackey v. Stinnie) 

In a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court ruled five Virginia residents who won a preliminary injunction over their driver’s licenses being revoked are not entitled to attorneys’ fees. The residents had to show they were a “prevailing party,” but the court disagreed, noting that no court “conclusively resolved their claims” because the ruling was merely preliminary. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Sotomayor, wrote in dissent that the decision “ignores both our precedents and Congress’s intent.” 

In/Out: The Order List

Opinions get the most attention, but much of the Supreme Court’s power lies in its choosing of which cases to take up. These next two sections explore this axis of the Supreme Court’s power. 

Each week, the justices make these decisions while meeting behind closed doors at what’s known as the “conference.” Between 100-300 petitions are scheduled for a normal conference, and the justices ultimately only agree take up about 1 percent of them. 

In this first section, we’ll give you a look back at the decisions the justices made at their most recent conference.”  

IN

The justices took up no new cases. 

OUT

A significant number of justices opted to write written dissents in cases the court turned away. These writings draw additional attention to the case and oftentimes send signals to lower courts and plaintiffs. 

• Sidewalk counseling: The court declined another opportunity to review its 2000 precedent, Hill v. Colorado, which has allowed bans on anti-abortion activists approaching people entering an abortion clinic (sometimes dubbed “sidewalk counseling). The precedent has come under increasing criticism from conservatives. Thomas and Alito voted to take up the case, with Thomas writing that not doing so is an “abdication of our judicial duty.” 

• Police shooting: The court declined to take up San Jose Police Officer Michael Pina’s appeal of a ruling denying him qualified immunity in a $1 million civil lawsuit brought by the survivors of Jacob Dominguez, a robbery suspect whom Pina shot in 2017 after incorrectly believing he was armed. Thomas and Alito said they would’ve sided with the officer. 

• Police raid gone wrong: In another case implicating qualified immunity that went the other way, the court declined to hear a challenge to a Texas police lieutenant granted qualified immunity after he ordered his SWAT team to execute a no-knock raid on an innocent family’s home, believing it was a methamphetamine stash house.  Sotomayor and Jackson indicated they would’ve taken up the case but did not provide a written explanation.  

• Military injury suits: Over the objection of Thomas, the court declined to reconsider the “Feres Doctrine,” referring to a 1950s Supreme Court ruling that prevents servicemembers from suing the government for damages over injuries sustained while on active duty. Thomas has called for ending the doctrine before. 

• Restitution jury trial right: The court declined to take up appeals from three criminal defendants arguing their 6^th Amendment right to a jury in criminal trials extends to determining whether they owe restitution. Gorsuch, who has a reputation for siding with criminal defendants more than some of his conservative colleagues, said he would’ve taken up the case. 

• Acquittals in California: Under the Constitution’s double jeopardy protections, you can’t be prosecuted again upon being acquitted of a crime. California employs a narrower definition of what constitutes a qualifying acquittal, and the Supreme Court turned away a defendant’s challenge to it. Sotomayor wrote that she agreed, because the case presented vehicle issues, but she said there is “reason to think” California’s rule isn’t constitutional.  

• Misdemeanor warrantless arrests: In another criminal defense case, the court turned away a challenge to whether it’s constitutional for law enforcement to arrest someone for a misdemeanor without a warrant if it wasn’t committed in their presence. Sotomayor, joined by Gorsuch, said the posture of the case would’ve impeded the court’s review but they want to decide the issue “in an appropriate case.” 

Cert Watch

Looking ahead to Friday’s conference, the justices are set to consider just under 100 petitions.  

The court will announce what it decides in an order list at 9:30am EST on Monday. But if they decide to take up a case, they sometimes release that portion of the list on Friday.  

In this section, we’ll primarily focus on cases that have been “relisted,” meaning the justices returned a petition to the list to discuss at a consecutive conference. 

Seem benign? It’s not. A case being relisted is a tell-tale sign that it’s getting some extra attention.

We’ll dive deeper into what a relist could signal in future editions. But for now, here are this week’s nine relists: 

• Two-genders shirt: Do you recall the Supreme Court’s famous 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, that allowed students to wear to school armbands protesting the Vietnam War? Fast forward to 2025: today’s battle revolves around whether that precedent clears a student to wear a shirt that reads, “There are only two genders.” The student’s guardians are appealing a ban imposed by the Middleborough, Mass., school district. 

• Colorado conversion therapy ban: Counselor Kaley Chiles is appealing Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. A practicing Christian, Chiles “believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex” and that the state’s ban violates her free speech rights. Both Chiles and the student in the above case are represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal powerhouse that regularly brings cases to the high court. 

• Guns x2: Week after week, the court has relisted two potentially major Second Amendment cases. The first challenges Rhode Island’s ban on high-capacity magazines, while the second contests Maryland’s semiautomatic rifle ban. Either would be the first Second Amendment case since the court last term in an 8-1 vote upheld a federal law disarming domestic abusers. 

• College bias response teams: The court is being asked to take up the constitutionality of college bias response teams, which have come under First Amendment challenges from the right. The court previously turned away a challenge implicating Virginia Tech over the gripes of Thomas and Alito, who authored a written dissent.  They may be doing the same in this latest case, which involves Indiana University, unless the duo can find two more votes. 

• Maps x2: The Institute for Justice has asked the court to take up First Amendment cases brought by a California entrepreneur and a North Carolina drone operator, who were both found to not have proper licensing when they created aerial and site maps.  

• Flat Oak: In a religious rights case, the court has been sitting on a petition to block the federal government from transferring Oak Flat, a sacred site in Arizona where the Apache have long worshipped, so it can be converted into a mine. 

• Confrontation Clause: Cid Franklin, a criminal defendant in New York, is claiming his Sixth Amendment protections under the Confrontation Clause were violated when his bail report was admitted at trial without cross-examination. 

Looking ahead

This week’s docket includes major developments sprinkled across the judiciary, from expected Supreme Court rulings to hearings on challenges to major Trump administration actions in lower courts. 

Given the lightning speed at which the courts are considering those challenges, additional hearings will likely pop up throughout the week. But for now, here’s what we’re watching:  

Today: 

• The Supreme Court will announce opinions.  

• The justices will also hear arguments in an employment discrimination case, where they’re asked to decide whether plaintiffs who claim discrimination must show “background circumstances” if they’re alleging such as part of a majority group.  

• A federal judge in Washington, D.C. will hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit brought by the head of the Office of the Special Counsel, who was fired by Trump. 

Thursday: 

• A temporary restraining order hearing is scheduled in a lawsuit challenging OPM’s directive to fire probationary employees. 
• A federal judge in Alexandria will resume a temporary restraining order hearing on whether to block the administration from terminating 11 intelligence community employees who work on DEI-related roles.

Friday: 

• A federal judge in Greenbelt, Md., will hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit seeking to stop the operations of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), saying it’s unconstitutional since the tech billionaire has not been confirmed by the Senate. 

Monday: 

• The Supreme Court will announce orders. 

• The justices will also hear arguments in three cases, two of which were consolidated. The first two cases ask the justices to decide whether plaintiffs must meet the minimum contacts test when suing a foreign sovereign. The third case asks whether a group of terrorist attack victims and their families can amend their lawsuit alleging a Lebanese bank aided and abetted Hamas. 

• A federal judge in Washington, D.C. will hold a summary judgment hearing in the civil case against President Trump and extremist group leaders over their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.  

• A different federal judge in D.C. has scheduled a status conference over discovery production in a lawsuit brought by anonymous FBI agents who worked on Jan. 6 cases seeking to block the public release of their names. 

• And finally, another Washington federal judge will hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit brought by a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) who was fired by Trump.   

Tuesday:  

• The Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether Mexico’s lawsuit against the American firearms industry is barred by a federal law shielding gun manufacturers and dealers from civil lawsuits.  

What we’re reading

POLITICO’s Erica Orden: “Before he became Trump’s bulldog at DOJ, Emil Bove was nearly demoted for bellicose management style” 

The Hill’s Rebecca Beitsch: “Dan Goldman looks to be ‘the man in the arena’ against Trump” 

WABE’s Sam Gringlas: “Fulton County DA Fani Willis begins her second term expressing no regrets over Trump case” 

WIRED’s Eric Geller: “The 50-Year-Old Law That Could Stop DOGE in Its Tracks—Maybe” 

The Volokh Conspiracy’s Jonathan Adler, “Where did all the summary reversals go?” 

We’ll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here.  

Questions? Tips? Love letters, hate mail, pet pics? Email us here: elee@thehill.com and zschonfeld@thehill.com. Securely reach us on Signal here: @elee.03 and @zachschonfeld.48. 

Source link