Are you on the hunt for books this holiday season (whether to read yourself while curled up by a cozy fire or as a gift for others)? Consider revisiting Mathew Rosengart’s SCOTUSblog piece about former Justice David Souter’s top recommendations for shopping inspiration.
SCOTUS Quick Hits
- The court could issue its decisions in the interim docket cases on President Donald Trump’s effort to deploy the National Guard to Illinois and Texas’ new congressional map at any time.
- Today, the justices will hear argument in Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, on whether individuals can challenge a law as unconstitutional and seek to protect themselves from its future enforcement if they’ve previously been punished for violating the law.
- On Monday, SCOTUSblog will be hosting a live blog during the oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter. The live blog will begin at 9:30 a.m. EST.
Morning Reads
- Costco sues Trump administration for ‘full refund’ of tariffs (Zach Schonfeld, The Hill) — Costco recently joined the list of companies (such as Kawasaki, Bumble Bee Foods, and Revlon) that have filed lawsuits seeking tariff refunds in the event that the “Supreme Court strikes down the bulk of President Trump’s tariffs,” according to The Hill. “Like the others, Costco said it needed to file its own case because it is ‘not guaranteed a refund for those unlawfully collected tariffs in the absence of their own judgment and judicial relief.’”
- Bayer Stock Jumps After Trump Administration Backs Supreme Court Roundup Review (Patrick Thomas and Billy Gray, The Wall Street Journal)(Paywall) — In April, Bayer, a German agriculture and pharmaceuticals conglomerate, asked the Supreme Court to take up a case on its Roundup weedkiller, which has been the subject of hundreds of lawsuits brought by “plaintiffs who have claimed that Roundup’s main ingredient, glyphosate, caused their cancer,” according to The Wall Street Journal. In June, the court invited the federal government to weigh in on the dispute. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed the requested brief on Monday and Bayer shares surged as a result. Sauer appeared to support the company’s argument “that customers shouldn’t be able to sue under state law for failing to warn about potential cancer risks, since at the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency has determined glyphosate doesn’t require a cancer warning.”
- A Supreme Court fight just might start with a few vacant NYC apartments (Ryan Kost, Gothamist) — In recent years, interest has grown in getting the Supreme Court to review New York’s rent-stabilization policies, particularly after Justice Clarence Thomas described the “constitutionality of regimes like New York City’s” as “an important and pressing question” in a February 2024 statement on the court’s decision not to hear a case on the topic, according to Gothamist. In November, the Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit on New York’s rules for rent adjustments after major apartment repairs that it believes will “offer the court the kind of clean, concrete dispute that could allow the justices to revisit the constitutional limits of rent regulation.”
- Paintings Loaned by the National Gallery of Art to the Supreme Court (Josh Blackman, The Volokh Conspiracy, Reason) — In a post for Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Josh Blackman highlighted research he’s done into “some of the unique benefits of being a Supreme Court Justice.” Blackman found that justices are able to “borrow priceless artwork from the National Gallery of Art” and compiled a list of the paintings that various justices are known to have requested.
- Supreme Advocacy: What It Takes to Argue at the Supreme Court (Andrew Satter and Josh Block, Bloomberg Law) — A new documentary from Bloomberg Law offers “an unprecedented, behind-the-scenes look at what it takes to argue before the nation’s highest court.” Specifically, it follows Roman Martinez of Latham & Watkins as he works on A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 during the 2024-25 term.
A Closer Look: Bannon v. United States
This term, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to revisit the government’s response to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol in a case brought to it by Steve Bannon, a prominent former adviser to President Donald Trump.
Bannon v. United States stems from a House investigation into the events of Jan. 6., in which Bannon was subpoenaed by the House Select Committee to provide information about his communications with Trump, the White House, and individuals who worked on Trump’s reelection campaign. When Bannon failed to comply, he was found in contempt of Congress by the House and then indicted on contempt charges by a grand jury in Washington, D.C.
Bannon planned to defend himself in the trial court by pointing to advice he received from his attorney, who advised him not to comply because the House Select Committee was seeking information that was protected by Trump’s executive privilege. Bannon contended that he should not be convicted of “willfully” refusing to testify since his refusal was based on a reasonable belief that he did not need to comply.
A U.S. district judge determined that the government needed only to prove that Bannon’s actions had been intentional and held that Bannon could not base his defense on the guidance that he had received from his lawyer about the subpoena. The jury found Bannon guilty of both counts of contempt, and he was sentenced to four months in prison.
Before serving his sentence, Bannon appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and, when that effort failed, filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, asking the justices to delay the start of his prison term as he appealed his conviction. On June 28, 2024, three days before Bannon was scheduled to report to prison, the court announced that it would not intervene. Bannon reported to prison and was released on Oct. 29, 2024.
Now, Bannon has returned to the court as he fights to have the conviction removed from his record and for the Supreme Court to clarify what it means to “willfully” ignore a subpoena in this context. His petition for review also invites the justices to determine if the House Select Committee had authority to issue the subpoena in the first place.
Initially, the federal government waived its right to respond to Bannon’s appeal. On Nov. 10, however, the court called for a response, which means that at least one justice wanted to know the government’s arguments before deciding how to vote on the petition.
That response is due Dec. 10, so Bannon v. United States likely won’t be addressed by the justices during a private conference until early next year.
SCOTUS Quote
“[A]n ordinary person, one of the funders for this organization or for any similar organization presented with this subpoena and then told but don’t worry, it has to be stamped by a court, is not going to take that as very reassuring.”
— Justice Elena Kagan in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin
On Site
Argument Analysis
Court Appears Sympathetic to Faith-Based Pregnancy Centers’ Argument
The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered an effort by a group of faith-based pregnancy centers to challenge New Jersey’s demand for information about the group’s fundraising practices in federal court. The state contends that the group, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, must litigate its claims in state court, but after Tuesday morning’s oral argument, a majority of the justices appeared ready to side with First Choice. Amy’s argument analysis highlights key points made on Tuesday.
Court Seems Dubious of Billion-Dollar Judgment for Copyright Infringement
In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the justices are confronting one of the central features of internet behavior as it has developed this century: the seemingly ineradicable interest of users in consuming copyrighted media – movies, music, and the like – without permission of the content providers. In this case, the lower courts held that Cox was liable for its customers’ infringement, to the tune of more than a billion dollars. If the arguments on Monday give a reliable hint of their views on the matter, the justices are unlikely to accept that outcome. For more on the case, read Ronald Mann’s argument analysis.
Court Debates Asylum Determinations
In Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, the Supreme Court on Monday considered whether federal courts of appeals should make their own determination on whether an asylum seeker experienced persecution, or leave it to the Board of Immigration Appeals, in a case that will clarify the circuit courts’ roles in the immigration system. Kelsey analyzed the arguments.
Contributor Corner
Religious Schools and Religious Rites
In his latest Rights and Responsibilities column, Richard Garnett reflected on the Supreme Court’s June ruling stating that parents have a constitutional right to pull their young kids from particular public-school programming and wrestled with a follow-up question that may soon be before the court: May governments require religious schools to permit parental opt-outs from religious instruction and activities?
Posted in Featured, Newsletters
Recommended Citation:
Kelsey Dallas,
SCOTUStoday for Wednesday, December 3,
SCOTUSblog (Dec. 3, 2025, 9:00 AM),
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/scotustoday-for-wednesday-december-3/
