U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch on Tuesday urged Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts and Utah to stop using juries with fewer than 12 people in some criminal trials as the high court declined to revisit a 50 year old precedent that has allowed them to do so. The court declined to hear an appeal that raised the question of whether the U.S. Constitution bars juries with as few as six people from deciding felony cases. Williams v. Florida was a 1970 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the 6th Amendment does not require 12-member juries. Reuters has more.

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled that a separate hearing is not required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes. Two Alabama women loaned their cars to individuals who later used them in drug crimes. They had argued that they were entitled to a preliminary hearing to determine whether police could retain their cars during the forfeiture process. The court said Congress and the states have long authorized police to seize and hold personal property pending a forfeiture hearing, without separate preliminary hearings. The ABA Journal has the story.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding mechanism, siding with the Biden administration against the payday loan industry. The 7-2 decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, reversed a lower court's ruling that the CFPB's funding design violated a provision of the U.S. Constitution called the "appropriations clause," which gives Congress the power of the purse. The agency draws money annually from the Federal Reserve instead of from budgets passed by lawmakers, SCOTUSblog reports.

Two U.S. Supreme Court justices are speaking out about their experiences on the nation’s highest court. At a conference of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Alabama Justice Clarence Thomas decried “the nastiness and the lies” he and his wife have “had to endure” in recent years, and described Washington, D.C., as a place where “people pride themselves in being awful.” Thomas also talked about why he tends to write separate or dissenting opinions that question long-standing precedent. At a conference for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in Austin, both Thomas and Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns about the court’s growing emergency docket. They said it pressures justices to make quick rulings in controversial issues before developing a complete understanding of the facts. Bloomberg Law looks at both events.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch will be out with a book this summer. ”Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law” will be released Aug. 6 according to Harper Collins. The book is written by Gorsuch and one of his former clerks, Janie Nitze. According to the publisher, Gorsuch and Nitze will review a variety of legal cases, from fishermen in Florida to an Internet entrepreneur in Massachusetts, and how Americans find themselves “trapped unexpectedly in a legal maze.” The Associated Press has more on the book.

The U.S. Supreme Court kicked off its “opinion season” today, Reuters reports. Among the cases decided, the court ruled in favor of a music producer in a legal fight with Warner Music, finding there is no time limit for recovering monetary damages in copyright cases that have been filed before the expiration of a statue of limitations. In another case, the court reinforced the power of law enforcement authorities to retain seized property belonging to people not charged with a crime. According to the courts calendar, the next opinion day is set for May 16. Reuters looks at the major cases argued this term.

A lawsuit deciding the fate of health care for transgender children in Tennessee is set to be evaluated by the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow, the Nashville Banner reports. The case, L.W. v. Skrmetti, is on the court’s list of cases to be evaluated for further action. The case arose out of a challenge to a 2023 law that bans surgery and prescription of hormone blockers for minors. The law was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of a 15-year-old, along with her parents and doctor. While U.S. District Court Judge Eli Richardson initially blocked the law’s enforcement, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling in July.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case that will test whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for acts committed while in office. According to Reuters, conservative members of the court indicated some sympathy to the argument that presidents should have some immunity against criminal charges for certain actions taken in office, while the liberal members warned that giving a former president sweeping immunity might embolden sitting presidents to commit crimes while in the White House. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed up the gravity of the case, saying, "We're writing a rule for the ages." Former President Donald Trump has claimed that he is immune from criminal prosecution for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. Trump argues that, because he was president at the time, he cannot now be tried. His trial in that case remains on hold until the Supreme Court rules.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a challenge to the National Labor Relations Board’s reinstatement of seven terminated Memphis employees who were organizing a union at a Poplar Avenue Starbucks cafe. NPR has more about the case, which began in 2022 after Starbucks fired the employees, citing multiple violations of company policies. The workers maintain they were fired for trying to organize a union. Today's arguments were not about whether Starbucks illegally interfered with the union drive, but whether a lower court erred in ordering Starbucks to reinstate the baristas while their firings were being investigated. A ruling is expected by the end of June and could have far-reaching implications for labor organizing efforts across the country and across industries.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal involving a Pennsylvania state rule of professional conduct that prohibits lawyers from knowingly or intentionally engaging "in conduct constituting harassment or discrimination" based on race, sex, religion and other grounds. According to Reuters, the attorney challenging the rule argued that he risked violating it due to presentations he gives about offensive and derogatory language. In August, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the attorney lacked standing to sue because he had not shown that the rule threatened his constitutional free speech rights because it did not prohibit anything he planned to do.