The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday limited the ability of federal courts to review certain factual findings in immigration proceedings that determine whether noncitizens will be deported or allowed to remain in the country. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, states that federal law prevents review of factual findings that are connected to the executive branch’s judgments about granting discretionary immigration relief. “Federal courts have a very limited role to play in this process,” Barrett wrote. “With an exception for legal and constitutional questions, Congress has barred judicial review of the Attorney General’s decisions denying discretionary relief from removal.” Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the court’s three more liberal justices in dissent. Read more in SCOTUSBlog.

The leak of a draft opinion regarding abortion has turned the Supreme Court into a place “where you look over your shoulder,” Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday at a conference in Dallas. The Washington Post reports that Thomas also said the leak exposed the “fragile” nature of the court and that trust may be gone forever. “I wonder how long we’re going to have these institutions at the rate we’re undermining them. And then I wonder when they’re gone or destabilized, what we’re going to have as a country.” It was the second time in a week that Thomas decried declining respect for institutions; he made similar remarks at a conference of judges and lawyers two weeks ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that federal law limiting the amount of money candidates can raise to pay off personal debt violates the First Amendment. The Hill reports that the court, on a 6-3 vote, struck down a $250,000 cap on the amount of post-election funds a candidate can use to repay personal loans made to his or her campaign. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the law unduly burdens a candidate’s constitutional right “to use his own money to facilitate political speech.” The case was brought by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who sued the Federal Election Commission in an effort to pay off debt in excess of the federal limit.

As abortion-rights protests continue, the Republican governors of Virginia and Maryland are calling on the U.S. Justice Department to tighten security at the homes of U.S. Supreme Court justices living in their states. In a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland and Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia also pointed to federal law, which prohibits picketing the residence of a judge with the "intent of influencing" the judge. National Public Radio has more on that story. Yesterday, the court’s nine justices met in private for the first time since the leak of a draft opinion that indicated the court is prepared to overrule Roe v. Wade. The court offered no word on what was discussed but said at least one decision will be announced Monday, according to the Associated Press.

The U.S. Senate yesterday approved a bipartisan bill to boost security for Supreme Court justices to ensure their families are protected, the Associated Press reports. The measure does not provide additional funding for security, but makes a technical change that allows law enforcement to provide round-the-clock security to immediate family members of the justices. The bill comes amid protests around the country over a leaked draft opinion that suggests the high court is poised to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. The measure now heads to the U.S. House for consideration.

Publication of a leaked Supreme Court draft majority opinion suggests the court is ready to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Written by Justice Samuel Alito the draft opinion was published Monday night by POLITICO, which called it an unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” The Supreme Court confirmed the authenticity of the draft, but noted it could change before it is finalized, the New York Times reports. In Tennessee, Nashville public radio station WPLN offered an outline of what might happen in the state if the draft ruling is adopted by the court. 

The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to review a request for DNA testing of evidence from death row inmate Rodney Reed, The Hill reports. Reed was convicted in the 1996 murder of Stacey Stites in Bastrop County, Texas. He has maintained his innocence and has long sought genetic testing of items found at the crime scene. The technical issue before the high court deals with when the window closed for Reed to request DNA testing. Lower federal courts are divided on whether the clock begins when a trial court denies the request or whether it begins after the appeals process plays out. Death Penalty Information Center Executive Director Robert Dunham said the Supreme Court’s review of the case has “big stakes” and “major implications for either redressing miscarriages of justice — or institutionalizing them.”

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered today a brief, touching tribute to retiring Justice Stephen Breyer at the end of what was the final oral argument session of Breyer's 28-year tenure on the high court, CBS News reports. His voice breaking with emotion, Roberts noted that Breyer will retire from the Supreme Court at the end of its current term, which will likely conclude by the end of June, meaning the arguments heard by the justices today were the last with Breyer on the bench. NPR has Justice Breyer's remarks, from January when he announced his retirement, about his hope for the "American experiment." 

During nearly two hours of oral arguments, U.S. Supreme Court justices considered whether to let President Joe Biden rescind the "remain in Mexico" immigration policy begun under his predecessor. The policy forced tens of thousands of migrants to stay in Mexico while awaiting U.S. hearings on their asylum claims. Some of the conservative justices questioned the extent of the administration's discretion to release migrants into the United States, but also questioned whether Texas, one of the states that sued to maintain the program, could use the courts to constrain the government in an area over which there typically is broad federal authority. Reuters reports on the proceedings.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear all oral arguments scheduled for the April session in its courtroom but access will be limited to the justices, essential court personnel, counsel in the scheduled cases and journalists with full-time press credentials. In a release today the court said, “Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the Courtroom session will not be open to the public.” The court will provide a live audio feed of the arguments. A link to the feed will be available on the court's website.