The Supreme Court will release opinions on Monday at 10 a.m. EDT.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2026, 09:45 AM - Edit history (1)

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-rules-on-gun-rights-immigration-and-pesticide-labels/

The court has indicated that it will next release opinions on Monday at 10 a.m. EDT. We will be live blogging that morning beginning at 9:30. There is expected to be at least one more opinion announcement day after Monday.

Upcoming: Starts Jun 29, 9:30 AM ET
Announcement of opinions for Monday, June 29
We will be live blogging as the court potentially releases opinions in one or more argued cases from the current term. Click here for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements.

Note: A login is not required to participate in the chat.

To learn about future live blogs and the latest developments at the Supreme Court, subscribe to our SCOTUStoday newsletter, which we send each weekday morning.

[Bettie]

1. I remember a time when

dread was not my primary feeling about the announcment of decisions by the Supreme Court.

That was a long time ago.

Now I just wonder what new fuckery they are about to unleash on us.

[NCDem47]

2. Let me guess...6-3 to allow Trump anything...6-3 against the people

Release the decisions and then get the hell out of Dodge for the summer.

It's all becoming a bit predictable, isn't it?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Wondering whether the 6-3 majority will figuratively "split the baby"

as far as birthright citizenship.

IOW, if both parents aren't citizens at the time of the baby's birth, the baby can't be a citizen. But if one parent is a citizen and the other isn't, the baby can be a citizen.

I understand the Trump position is either both parents are citizens or they aren't.

[themaguffin]

15. that would be asinine, but this court doesn't give a shit if anything makes sense.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. Just about to begin. NT

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. The first case is Watson v. RNC.

Amy Howe
Mod
10:01 AM
The first case is Watson v. RNC.
It is by Justice Barrett.
Rory K. LittleMod replied Amy Howe
10:01 AM
It is by Justice Barrett.
one of the clearest writers on the COurt today.
Nora Collins
Mod
10:01 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p…
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1260_g3cn.pdf
Amy Howe
Mod
10:01 AM
The court holds that federal election-day statutes do NOT preempt a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by, and received within, five days of Election day.
The vote appears to be 5-4.
Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch and in part by Kavanaugh.
This is a bit of a surprise, to be honest.
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:02 AM
It's my "wild card court" again!
Amy Howe
Mod
10:03 AM
Justice Barrett writes that the "election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked after election day yet received afterward."

[Sympthsical]

6. Upheld mail-in voting

That's gonna piss Trump off, and now we'll never hear the end of the SAVE Act.

Barrett with the opinion. If anyone listens to oral arguments, she's really interesting sometimes. More interesting that I would've surmised at the time of her appointment. I still remember the Native American adoption case, where she was just staring at the Republican lawyers like, "You serious?". Jackson wanted to tear them apart, and Barrett was like, "I got this."

Naturally not all of her opinions are great, but sometimes she comes out of left field with a kind of "You must be shitting me" take.

[Johnny2X2X]

7. Mail in ballots in MS

Also went the way of democracy. Surprising, but they ruled that amil in ballots can be counted after election day even if post marked after.

[Johnny2X2X]

8. 4th amendment case goes our way

This court surprises sometimes.

[Sympthsical]

10. Lot of implications there

Since government commonly has tried to skirt a lot of privacy protections with the "But tech doesn't count!" slipperiness.

This nips some of that in the bud.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

9. Next up is Chatrie v. US. Justice Kagan has the opinion.

Amy Howe
Mod
10:09 AM
next up is Chatrie v. US
Justice Kagan has the opinion.
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:10 AM
Another careful and clear writer.
Amy Howe
Mod
10:10 AM
The vote appears to be 6-3. Alito dissents, joined in part by Thomas and in part by Barrett, adn then Barrett has a separate dissenting opinion.
Nora Collins
Mod
10:10 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p…
Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf
Amy Howe
Mod
10:10 AM
This case is a challenge to the use of a “geofence warrant” – a warrant that directed Google to provide law enforcement with location data for cellphone users who were near a Richmond-area bank when it was robbed in 2019.

Rory K. Little
Mod
10:11 AM
Meticulous about detail. Kagan and Barrett are becoming a pair -- both former law professors attentive to nuance and detail.

Amy Howe
Mod
10:12 AM
The court holds that police conducted a "search" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment "when they gained access to Location History data." "An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone's location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information."
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:12 AM
It's a search! That is big 4th A news all by itself.
And figuring out how the warrant requirement (which is not textually in the 4th A) applies, is remanded. That is wise.
Amy Howe
Mod
10:12 AM
The court sends the case back to the lower court for it to determine whether the search was reasonable, "meaning that each of its steps was properly described with particularity and found to be supported by probable cause."
This is not the last opinion of the day.
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:13 AM
This pretty much winds out the criminal law docket for me, this term.
David Lat
Mod
10:13 AM
(The number is fluctuating a lot, but it seems we have had as many as 20k in today's live blog.)
sarah isgur
Mod
10:13 AM
"I cannot support this irresponsible escapade." Lol. Very Justice Alito

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. We have Slaughter and Cook, both from Roberts. This is it.

Amy Howe
Mod
10:15 AM
We have Slaughter and Cook, both from Roberts.
This is it.

2
The vote in Slaughter is 6-3. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Jackson and Kagan.
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:16 AM
Ah, a pair. Funny how we all now await for Trump's reaction to today's work
Nora Collins
Mod
10:16 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p…
Cook: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a312_5468.pdf

Slaughter: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf
Amy Howe
Mod
10:16 AM
This was Rebecca Slaughter’s challenge to her removal from her position as a member of the Federal Trade Commission. Under federal law, the president could only remove her for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” but he did not cite any of the grounds in firing her. The lower courts ordered Trump to reinstate Slaughter. They pointed to Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 case in which the Supreme Court had upheld the FTC’s removal provision.
The court in Slaughter holds that the "for cause" removal provision for the FTC is contrary to the Constitution's separation of powers.
The court also overrules Humphrey's Executor.
Nina Howe-Goldstein
Mod
10:18 AM
“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, the Court overrules it.”

[mahatmakanejeeves]

12. In Trump v. Cook, the vote is 5-4. Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson join the chief justice.

Nora Collins
Mod
10:16 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p…
Cook: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a312_5468.pdf

Slaughter: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf

Amy Howe
Mod
10:18 AM
In Trump v. Cook, the vote is 5-4. Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson join the chief justice.
At issue in this case is the Trump administration’s efforts to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, based on allegations of mortgage fraud (which she strenuously disputes). The lower courts required Trump to allow Cook to stay at the Fed while litigation continued, and the Supreme Court heard argument in January on whether to pause the lower court’s decision.

At issue in this case is the Trump administration’s efforts to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, based on allegations of mortgage fraud (which she strenuously disputes). The lower courts required Trump to allow Cook to stay at the Fed while litigation continued, and the Supreme Court heard argument in January on whether to pause the lower court’s decision.
The court today turns down the government's request to pause the lower court's decision -- e.g., Lisa Cook can continue to stay in office while the litigation continues.
Thomas has a dissenting opinion; Alito has a dissenting opinion joined by Gorsuch; Barrett also has a dissenting opinion.

David Lat
Mod
10:20 AM
"To accept any one of [the Trump administration's arguments would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference. We therefore deny the Government’s application."
Amy Howe
Mod
10:20 AM
I was just about to type that, David. Thank you!
David LatMod replied David Lat
10:20 AM
"To accept any one of [the Trump administration's arguments would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s… more
There should be a closing bracket around "administration's."
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:20 AM
Wild card court here too.
David LatMod replied David Lat
10:21 AM
There should be a closing bracket around "administration's."
The Chief did not mention He Who Must Not Be Named.
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:21 AM
And how we will now separate "
independent" agencies that Congress can define, from others, will not get any easier. That is, if COngress ever starts again to enact careful legislation. Which right now looks doubtful.
Jason Noah
10:21 AM
5
Sorry, y'all, I'm a bit confused. Practically, what does the Slaughter decision mean? Does it allow the president to fire FTC commissioners for any reason?
Amy Howe
Mod
10:21 AM
1
"Having rejected the Government's view that the courts are to play no role in assessing the validity of a Governor's removal, we may decide this application on narrow grounds. No matter the precise definition of cause, or the scope of our review of any such determination, the President failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute."
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:23 AM
So, like immigration? President can do as he pleases, BUT some minimal due process required?
Amy Howe
Mod
10:23 AM
6
From Slaughter -- "To 'discharg[e] the duties of his trust,' the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him."
2
We do not yet know about the last opinion day. Roberts is still reading from his opinions, which came from the PIO rubber-banded together.
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:24 AM
6
FDR and Taft are dancing together right now, somewhere....
David Lat
Mod
10:24 AM
4
In terms of their bottom lines at least, Slaughter and Cook came out as many expected. "The Fed is different" carried the day.
Amy Howe
Mod
10:25 AM
5
Roberts is still reading from Slaughter (h/t Chris Geidner).
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:25 AM
1
CA media just waking up. So I have a civilized TV appearance schedule today!
Amy Howe
Mod
10:26 AM
9
There are no more decisions coming today.
David LatMod replied Amy Howe
10:26 AM
1
We do not yet know about the last opinion day. Roberts is still reading from his opinions, which came from the PIO… more
The Chief will let us know when the last day of the Term will be. Otherwise, the Marshal will tell us when the next opinion day is.
Amy Howe
Mod
10:26 AM
1
Justice Sotomayor is reading from her dissent in Slaughter.
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:27 AM
Sotomayor's third oral dissent this Term. Is that a record? At least recently?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

13. Amy Howe Mod 10:26 AM There are no more decisions coming today.

Amy Howe
Mod
10:26 AM
9
There are no more decisions coming today.
David LatMod replied Amy Howe
10:26 AM
1
We do not yet know about the last opinion day. Roberts is still reading from his opinions, which came from the PIO… more
The Chief will let us know when the last day of the Term will be. Otherwise, the Marshal will tell us when the next opinion day is.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

14. David Lat: We could have opinion days tomorrow, or tomorrow and Wednesday, or just Wednesday.

David Lat
Mod
10:27 AM
2
We could have opinion days tomorrow, or tomorrow and Wednesday, or just Wednesday. I'd be shocked if we went to Thursday. (Friday is July 4th observed.)
Rory K. Little
Mod
10:28 AM
Agree.
Zachary Shemtob
Mod
10:28 AM
2
4 opinions left to be decided
Kelsey Dallas
Mod
10:29 AM
We've got birthright citizenship left, as well as the two transgender athlete cases and the campaign finance case
Zachary Shemtob
Mod
10:29 AM
Again, we're done for the day and should find out soon when the next (likely last) day will be
Amy Howe
Mod
10:29 AM
I'm going to get to work, although I will come back in when we hear about the next (and presumably last) day.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

16. Amy Howe Mod: Tomorrow will be the last day.

Amy Howe
Mod
10:52 AM
13
Tomorrow will be the lat day.
last day.
Nina Howe-Goldstein
Mod
10:52 AM
Oh boy.
Amy Howe
Mod
10:53 AM
9
Now I'm going to sign off for real. Thanks so much for joining us, and we'll have more coverage of all of today's opinions on the blog.
Zachary Shemtob
Mod
10:53 AM
4
So (unless something is reargued) we will receive the last 4 tomorrow, which includes birthright and the transgender athletes cases
Nina Howe-Goldstein
Mod
10:53 AM
4
Thank you Amy and team!! See you tomorrow for another blockbuster.
Rory K. LittleMod replied Amy Howe
10:54 AM
Tomorrow will be the lat day.
Thank you Amy. No more guessing on which opinions when. Just about what, precisely.
David Lat
Mod
10:54 AM
They avoided going into July. Congratulations, Your Honors!
1
SCOTUS justices are just like us: they like long(er) weekends.
Zachary Shemtob
Mod
10:55 AM
And, if possible, escaping the DC heat

[LetMyPeopleVote]

17. Trump did not have fun this morning