During a closed-door meeting of the U.S. Judicial Conference on Tuesday, Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois and chair of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, urged U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to implement an enforceable ethics code for the court. Durbin argued that the court's recently adopted code — its first formal set of ethical guidelines for the nine justices — lacks necessary enforcement mechanisms, according to Reuters. Adopted in November 2023 after reports that justices received undisclosed gifts and luxury trips, the new code allows members of the court to self-regulate their recusal decisions, unlike the binding standards for lower-court judges. Durbin emphasized that while the new code represents a step forward, it must be made enforceable. President Joe Biden also has called on Congress to establish a binding code for justices. Others argue, however, that the U.S. Constitution does not give Congress the authority to regulate the court.

U.S Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in an interview with a professor at New York University's law school, talks about the court's increasing reliance on its emergency docket, arguing that it hinders the justices' ability to provide thoughtful and thorough decisions. Reuters reports that Kagan also said the docket has become overcrowded, particularly in recent years, as both government and non-government parties have turned to the court for quick rulings. She expressed concerns about the potential for errors in decisions made without a full review of the facts and legal issues. Reuters also reports that during the interview Kagan advocated for enforcing the court's ethics code to improve public trust in the institution.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Oklahoma's bid to reinstate over $4 million in Title X funding while its legal challenge against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proceeds. According to SCOTUSblog, the dispute involves Title X's federal requirement for abortion counseling and referrals, which conflicts with Oklahoma's abortion restrictions. Oklahoma argued that these requirements violate the Constitution’s spending clause and federal Weldon Amendment, which protects providers who refuse abortion referrals. The federal government countered that Congress routinely conditions federal grants on compliance with requirements and that the Weldon Amendment does not cover state agencies. Oklahoma also argued that a recent ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a district court’s decision withholding similar funds from Tennessee, should not influence the court because the Weldon Amendment was not cited in that case.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has recently published her memoir, "Lovely One." (The title, according to Jackson’s aunt, is the meaning of her first and middle names, Ketanji Onyika, in an African dialect.) In an interview with NPR, Jackson describes her confirmation hearing — during which many senators criticized her judicial philosophy — along with her multi-generational path to becoming the first Black woman to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. She also talks about her support for a binding code of ethics for the justices of the court.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming medical care for minors violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The brief, filed in support of the federal government’s challenge to the law, contends that the Tennessee law impermissibly denies the fundamental right to medical autonomy for certain groups while allowing it for others. “Equal protection forbids differential treatment in the exercise of important constitutional rights absent the strongest justification, and Tennessee’s SB1 cannot withstand scrutiny under that standard,” the ABA brief says. Read more about the filing in this release.

Following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that raised the standard for obstruction charges, federal prosecutors have decided not to pursue a similar charge against Joseph Fischer, a former police officer involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. According to Reuters, the court’s 6-3 decision requires prosecutors to prove that obstructing an official proceeding impaired or attempted to impair the integrity of documents or records. The ruling is reported to affect over 250 cases from the Capitol attack. The U.S. Justice Department has dropped obstruction charges in more than 60 cases, but plans to continue to pursue them in specific cases where the stricter standard can be met, such as those involving direct tampering with documents.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday declined without comment the Biden administration’s request to reinstate its new student debt relief as legal challenges to the plan proceed, SCOTUSblog reports. Two groups of Republican state attorneys general challenged the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, arguing the administration does not have legal authority to implement it. In those cases, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the plan to go forward while the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals effectively blocked it. The conflict in the appellate courts led the administration to seek the Supreme Court’s emergency intervention. The Hill also reports that the court turned down an alternative idea proposed by all sides that it consider the case on the merits during its upcoming term.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments from Tennessee families and physicians later this year in a case challenging the state’s ban on transgender medical care for minors. This week, a group of families and physicians filed a brief with the court urging it to block the law, WPLN reports. Failure to do so would set a legal precedent for discrimination against transgender people, they argue. The ACLU of Tennessee has a copy of the filing. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the law to take effect last year. State Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti says the case “will bring much-needed clarity to whether the constitution contains special protections for gender identity.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the Biden administration’s request to allow temporary enforcement of most of an April 2024 rule that implements Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which addresses sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Tennessee and five other states challenged Title IX provisions, arguing that the rules were unlawful. The group previously persuaded two lower courts to stop the rule from taking effect in the state, which the Supreme Court upheld in a 5-4 ruling, SCOTUS Blog reports. Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti states in a press release that, “This is a win for student privacy, free speech, and the rule of law.” The challenge to the rule is ongoing, with additional litigation in other states and oral arguments in one case set for October at the high court.

The Biden administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate its latest student loan forgiveness plan, known as the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan. The emergency appeal, filed on Tuesday, seeks to overturn the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals' extended block on the student debt relief plan. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the SAVE Plan, which aims to reduce monthly student loan payments for millions of borrowers, falls within the Department of Education’s established authority to regulate income-contingent repayment plans, The Hill reports.