U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard challenges to Idaho’s and West Virginia’s laws that bar transgender women and girls from competing in female sports, with justices probing whether the statutes discriminate based on transgender status or on sex. President Trump afterward attacked justices he thought sympathetic to the plaintiffs—saying any justice who would allow “men to be able to play in women’s sports” should “lose a lot of credibility”—while in‑court observers noted moments such as Justice Clarence Thomas appearing disengaged and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressing the states’ solicitors general on disparate treatment.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear a challenge to a Hawaii law that generally bars carrying firearms on private property open to the public—such as stores, hotels, bars and restaurants—unless the owner explicitly allows guns by sign or verbal consent. Three Maui residents sued in 2023 after the state, responding to the Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, rewrote its gun laws to expand concealed carry while designating wide swaths of locations, including beaches and alcohol‑serving establishments, as off‑limits. A district judge initially blocked key provisions, but a Ninth Circuit panel later upheld most of the restrictions and specifically approved the default rule against guns on public‑facing private property, prompting the plaintiffs’ appeal. The justices agreed to review only that narrow issue, with the gun owners arguing the rule effectively "eviscerates" the right to carry for self‑defense because many businesses are unwilling to post "guns allowed" signs, and state‑aligned advocates countering that the law simply codifies a longstanding norm that weapons are not brought into others’ premises without clear permission. Because Bruen requires modern gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, the case is expected to be a key test of how far states can go in defaulting private businesses to "no guns" and may influence similar laws or proposals in other jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bayer’s appeal in the Roundup litigation, centered on whether EPA‑approved labels and federal pesticide law preempt state‑law failure‑to‑warn claims over glyphosate‑based herbicides. The justices’ decision could determine whether thousands of pending state court cancer suits against Bayer can proceed or must be blocked.

E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers have filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court opposing Donald Trump’s petition to overturn the $5 million civil verdict a New York jury awarded her for sexual abuse and defamation, urging the justices not to hear the case. Trump’s petition argues the trial judge wrongly allowed jurors to see the 'Access Hollywood' tape and other evidence, claiming the 2nd Circuit’s approval of those rulings conflicts with other federal appeals courts and raises an 'important question of federal law.' Carroll’s team counters that Trump’s entire petition rests on a factual misstatement that she falsely accused him, details what the jury actually found he did to her in a 1996 department‑store dressing room, and argues there is no genuine circuit split. They also say Trump’s lawyers never showed how any alleged evidentiary error affected his 'substantial rights,' calling that omission a 'fatal defect' under the standards for Supreme Court review. The justices will now consider Trump’s petition, Carroll’s opposition and any reply brief from Trump’s lawyers before deciding whether at least four of them want to grant certiorari, a step the Court takes in fewer than 60 cases per term.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Bayer’s appeal in a Missouri Roundup case, a move that could determine whether Environmental Protection Agency approval of the weedkiller’s label blocks thousands of state lawsuits alleging the company failed to warn users about cancer risks. The justices will decide if EPA’s decision to approve glyphosate products without a cancer warning label preempts state failure‑to‑warn claims, after lower courts split and a Missouri jury awarded $1.25 million to a man who developed non‑Hodgkin’s lymphoma from spraying Roundup in a St. Louis community garden. The Trump administration has reversed the Biden administration’s stance and filed in support of Bayer, aligning with the company’s argument that it should not be punished under state law for following federal labeling requirements. Bayer, which faces about 181,000 Roundup claims and has set aside $16 billion for settlements, has already pulled glyphosate from U.S. residential Roundup but continues to sell it for agricultural use tied to genetically modified crops, and warns it may exit the U.S. farm market if litigation continues. Environmental and consumer groups say Bayer is turning to the high court because it keeps losing before juries and fear a broad ruling could sharply curtail Americans’ ability to sue over pesticides even when new health evidence emerges.

Nicholas Moore, 24, of Springfield, Tennessee, pleaded guilty in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 16, 2026, to a misdemeanor computer‑fraud charge for repeatedly hacking the U.S. Supreme Court’s electronic filing system and accessing other federal systems with stolen credentials. Prosecutors say that in 2023 he used someone else’s login to get into the Court’s filing system on 25 different days, pulled that person’s personal records, and then posted their information on an Instagram account labeled “@ihackedthegovernment.” Moore also admitted using stolen credentials to access a user’s personal data on AmeriCorps’ servers and a Marine Corps veteran’s MyHealtheVet account at the Department of Veterans Affairs, again posting screenshots of what he found on the same Instagram page. He faces up to one year in prison when U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell sentences him on April 17, underscoring both the vulnerability of federal judicial and benefits platforms to credential theft and the relatively light maximum penalty attached to the misdemeanor count. The case comes as federal courts and agencies are under growing pressure to harden their online systems against low‑tech intrusions that can still compromise highly sensitive personal information.

In a 7–2 decision the Supreme Court held that candidates have a “concrete and particularized” interest to sue over vote‑counting rules before proving they were harmed, reviving Rep. Mike Bost’s challenge to an Illinois law that counts ballots postmarked by Election Day if received within two weeks — a practice used in more than a dozen states and D.C. — and signaling the Court will take up this broader question this spring; the ruling drew a concurrence from Justice Amy Coney Barrett (joined by Elena Kagan) and a dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (joined by Sonia Sotomayor) and provoked mixed reactions from legal scholars and advocacy groups, with the Trump administration backing Bost.