A series of recent surveys has found that a majority of Americans believe that U.S. Supreme Court justices let partisan views influence major rulings. Declining faith in the institution seems rooted in a growing concern that the high court is deciding cases on politics, rather than law, The Hill reports. While support for the court “sank swiftly last summer in response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization” decision, the anger runs deeper. “Liberals are fuming about a confluence of lucky timing and political maneuvering that enabled a Republican-controlled Senate to approve three conservative justices in four years …”. Others point to the involvement of one justice’s wife in the political arena. The news source unpacks these and other developments that have impacted public views of the court.

The U.S. Supreme Court today rebuffed an effort by Republican state officials to revive a Trump-era policy that barred certain immigrants from gaining lawful permanent residency if they were deemed likely to require government benefits. A group of Republican state attorneys general had challenged a lower court ruling that barred them from seeking to reinstate Trump’s "public charge" rule after the Biden administration rescinded it. The current administration’s action reinstated the previous policy, which defined immigrants as public charges only when they were likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. U.S. News & World Report has analysis from Reuters.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments about when attorney-client privilege should shield communications that provide both business and legal advice. Lawyers representing the petitioner argued that the privilege should protect all client communications where obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication. The government argued that unless legal advice is the primary purpose of communications, dual-purpose communications should not be privileged. An article written for SCOTUSblog last week looks at the issues at stake.

The U.S. Supreme Court today ordered that the Title 42 border policy remain in place for the time being, The Hill reports. Justices voted 5-4 to reverse an order from a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who ruled last month that the border policy must end. The ruling comes in response to an emergency request filed by 19 Republican state attorneys general asking to maintain the policy, which was scheduled to expire this week.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts today temporarily blocked the Biden administration from ending the pandemic-era Title 42 immigration policy, USA Today reports. The decision was the result of an emergency appeal filed by 19 conservative states earlier today. The states had asked the justices to block a lower court ruling requiring President Joe Biden to end use of Title 42 by Wednesday. Roberts ordered the administration to respond by 5 p.m. EST tomorrow. SCOTUSblog reports on the filing from the states.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to hear two new cases: one dealing with a law against encouraging illegal immigration and another addressing the use of arbitration agreements. The Biden administration is seeking to revive a federal law that makes it a criminal offense to encourage illegal immigration after it was struck down as a violation of free speech rights. The 9th Circuit says the law criminalizes commonplace speech, but the administration says it is an "important tool for combating activities that exacerbate unlawful immigration." In the second case, Coinbase is seeking to halt customer class actions and send the cases to arbitration. It is asking the court to stay the suits until it appeals a lower court order rejecting the arbitration request. Reuters looks at both cases.

U.S. Supreme Court justices will again announce decided cases from the bench, a practice that was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral arguments before the court continue to be livestreamed to the public, but the court said its opinion announcements will not. Instead, audio of the opinions will be available from the National Archives next term. The last time the justices delivered an opinion from the bench was March 3, 2020. Since then, the court has released opinions online. Read more from Bloomberg Law.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a second legal clash over President Biden’s student debt relief plan that is currently blocked by lower courts, The Hill reports. The new case stems from a legal challenge brought by individual borrowers who argue the program’s enactment was procedurally improper. Recently, a Texas-based federal judge invalidated the program and a New Orleans-based federal appeals court let that ruling stand, prompting the Biden administration to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. Earlier last month, the justices agreed to hear a St. Louis-based appeals court’s decision to block the program in a case brought by six conservative-led states.

The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear a second legal clash over President Biden’s student debt relief plan that is currently blocked by lower courts, The Hill reports. The new case stems from a legal challenge brought by individual borrowers who argue the program’s enactment was procedurally improper. A Texas-based federal judge last month invalidated the program and a New Orleans-based federal appeals court let that ruling stand, prompting the Biden administration to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. Earlier this month, the justices agreed to hear a St. Louis-based appeals court’s decision to block the program in a case brought by six conservative-led states.

The Supreme Court recently agreed to review the Biden administration’s student debt relief plan, but the justices declined to immediately revive the program, reports The Hill. In a brief unsigned order, the court indicated it would hear arguments in the case in February. The move comes after the administration urged the Supreme Court last month to clear one of the legal obstacles blocking the policy. The administration is currently fending off two separate rulings issued in recent weeks that have effectively halted the student loan forgiveness plan, which would give federal borrowers making less than $125,000 a year up to $10,000 debt relief. Separately, the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last night denied the administration’s request to revive the policy while it appeals a lower court ruling.