The U.S. Supreme Court on March 4 ruled unanimously that federal appeals courts must defer to immigration judges’ findings when evaluating asylum claims, applying the "substantial evidence" standard rather than conducting independent reviews. The case arose from an El Salvadoran family whose asylum application was denied, with courts upholding that denial as long as it was backed by reasonable evidence. Bloomberg Law reports that the ruling, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, arrives as the Trump administration fires immigration judges and instructs replacements to grant asylum only rarely.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently spoke at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston. His comments included expressing concern about how artificial intelligence (AI) might impact the legal profession, especially for new lawyers, as well as the potential for AI to be involved in court decisions or to pressure judges. On another issue, Roberts rejected the idea that Supreme Court justices are solely carrying out the agendas of those who appointed them. “You’ve got eight other views to factor in …” he said. Finally, Roberts addressed criticism of judges, saying that while opinions by judges are fair game for criticism, personal attacks cross the line. “Personally directed hostility is dangerous, and it’s got to stop,” he said according to Bloomberg Law. The Houston Business Journal has more on the appearance.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the Trump administration’s authority to end temporary immigration protections for migrants from countries facing extraordinary conditions, taking up cases involving Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for Haiti and Syria, The Hill reports. The justices left in place lower court rulings that block the administration from terminating the protections while the case proceeds, with oral arguments expected the week of April 27 and a decision likely by summer. Created by Congress in 1990, TPS allows foreign nationals to remain in the United States and obtain work authorization when conditions such as armed conflict or natural disasters make it unsafe to return home.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Feb. 25 that trial judges may prohibit a defendant and their attorney from discussing the defendant’s ongoing testimony during an overnight recess, while still allowing discussions on other matters such as trial strategy or plea negotiations, Bloomberg Law reports. The case arose from the Texas murder trial of David Villarreal, whose testimony as the defense’s only witness was paused for a 24-hour recess during which the judge instructed attorneys not to “manage his testimony,” though other discussions were permitted. Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the restriction strikes a balance between a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to the assistance and advice of counsel and and a defendant’s responsibility when they become a witness to offer sworn testimony that is free of any improper influence. The court affirmed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision upholding the order, concluding that judges may impose limited restrictions on discussions about testimony itself while a defendant remains on the stand.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in its effort to strip humanitarian deportation protections from more than 350,000 Haitians living in the United States. According to Reuters, the U.S. Justice Department filed an emergency request asking the court to lift a judge's decision that blocked the administration's move to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians. The lower court had found that the administration's action toward the Haitians likely was motivated in part by "racial animus." The administration has sought to end TPS for several countries, arguing the program was intended to provide temporary relief.

In a 6-3 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the statutory basis for most of President Donald Trump's tariffs, which were imposed by executive orders. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined with Justices Elena Kagan, Kentanji Brown Jackson and Sonya Sotomayor to find that the president exceeded the authority granted under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. SCOTUSblog reports that the majority held that the act authorizes presidents to regulate or block imports during foreign-related national emergencies, but does not clearly grant the power to impose tariffs. In dissent, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito argued that tariffs are a traditional tool for regulating imports and that the statute’s broad language reflects Congress’s intent to grant presidents significant flexibility during emergencies. Kavanaugh also suggested the ruling could trigger substantial refund claims from importers who paid the tariffs. Notably, the court did not address how the federal government should handle potential refunds of the more than $200 billion collected under the tariffs. The Hill also reports on the ruling. The president quickly responded to the ruling, saying he would use other statutory authorities to maintain the tariffs, according to Politico.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced this week that it will use new software to assist in identifying whether a case poses a potential conflict of interest for the justices, who decide for themselves whether to step aside from participation in cases. According to Reuters, the software will compare information about lawyers and parties to a dispute to certain information provided by the offices of each of the nine justices. These "automated recusal checks" will complement existing procedures carried out by the justices for reviewing potential conflicts, the court said. In an effort to identify conflicts for justices who own individual stock, the court also amended Rule 14 of its rules to require parties to include stock ticker symbols in their briefs starting next month.

The U.S. Supreme Court has added a case to its docket regarding the scope of the federal Video Protection Act. On Jan. 26, the court granted certiorari in Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case originating in Tennessee. The decision has the potential to limit class action lawsuits against websites that share their customers’ video viewing habits with third parties. The outcome will turn on the definition of who qualifies as a “consumer” for purposes of the act, according to legal observers. Learn more about the case from JD Supra or read the decision from the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 1 in a case testing President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to redefine birthright citizenship under the Constitution, Bloomberg Law reports. The order challenged the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which granted citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil. The order directed federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born to mothers not legally in the country or here temporarily, and whose fathers were not citizens or lawful permanent residents at the time of the birth. The court will take up a U.S. Justice Department appeal of a lower court ruling that blocked the policy saying it violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment as well as federal law.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a federal victim restitution law constitutes criminal punishment, reviving a challenge from a convicted bank robber to a statute enacted after his crime. In a 9-0 decision, the court sided with Holsey Ellingburg Jr., who is contesting the government’s efforts to collect restitution related to a 1995 bank robbery under the 1996 Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, Bloomberg Law reports. Writing for the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the law “is plainly criminal punishment for the purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause,” which prohibits the government from imposing criminal penalties based on laws that were not in effect at the time of the offense. The ruling reversed a lower court decision that had rejected Ellingburg’s challenge on the grounds that the restitution statute was not criminal punishment. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.