The American Bar Association (ABA) this week filed amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases. In the first, the group asks the court to require the U.S. government to provide a factual basis, beyond citing a general federal statute, to deny visa applications of a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse. The case of Department of State v. Sandra Muñoz is set for argument on April 23. In the second case, the ABA asks the court for the second time to take up a Texas death penalty case in which the defendant was convicted on DNA evidence and testimony from a police laboratory that was later deemed unreliable by the state. Read more about this case, Escobar v. Texas.

The U.S. Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments in a case that could have sweeping consequences for all Americans’ access to mifepristone, a widely used abortion pill. According to The Hill, the court is essentially being asked to uphold an appeals court ruling that overrides a series of changes made by the Food and Drug Administration over the past decade, including increasing the gestational age at which mifepristone can be used to up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, allowing the medication to be mailed to patients, lowering the dosage, allowing telehealth prescribing and permitting providers other than physicians to prescribe the drug.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked a Texas law allowing state law enforcement to arrest individuals suspected of entering the United States without documentation, Axios reports. The action comes just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the state to enforce the law while the issue is appealed, but directed the appeals court to act quickly on a “stay pending appeal,” noting that the court previously had imposed only a “temporary administrative stay.” Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion saying they would not have intervened in the case at this point. The Biden administration is challenging the law, arguing that immigration enforcement is solely the responsibility of the federal government. SCOTUSblog has more on the case.

U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges can no longer avoid disclosing the value of travel-related gifts they receive by classifying such free trips as "reimbursements" on their financial disclosure forms under new regulations now in effect, reports Reuters. The new policy, approved by the federal judiciary's Financial Disclosure Committee in January and announced last Friday, took effect on March 13. Officials said the disclosure policies were updated "to reflect past statutory changes more clearly and help ensure complete reporting of gifts and reimbursements consistent with statutory requirements."

In oral arguments today, U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of a challenge to how the Biden administration encouraged social media platforms to remove posts that federal officials deemed misinformation, Reuters reports. The case is testing whether the administration crossed the line from mere communication and persuasion to strong-arming or coercing platforms to unlawfully censor speech about topics such as elections and COVID-19. A lower court had imposed a preliminary injunction on how White House and other federal officials communicate with social media platforms. The Supreme Court paused that order last fall. Also today, the court hard arguments over whether a New York state official can be sued for violating the National Rifle Association's constitutional free speech rights after he allegedly pressured banks and insurers to avoid doing business with the group. Read more about that case here.

The U.S. Supreme Court today set a new standard for determining if public officials acted in a governmental capacity when blocking critics on social media — a test to be applied in lawsuits accusing them of violating the Constitution's First Amendment. Reuters reports that the justices, in a pair of unanimous rulings, threw out decisions by lower courts in cases from California and Michigan involving lawsuits brought by people who were blocked after posting criticisms on the social media accounts of local officials. The justices directed the lower courts to revisit the cases based on the new standard. First Amendment protections for free speech generally constrain government actors, not private individuals. Under the new test, officials are considered engaging in governmental action if they had "actual authority to speak on behalf of the state on a particular matter" and "purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts."

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett addressed the Civic Learning Week National Forum at The George Washington University earlier this week to discuss the state of relations among the justices in the wake of several high-profile and controversial rulings — including one that rejected state efforts to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. The justices united to promote civility even in the midst of disagreements. They said the need for civil debate has never been greater than it is in these polarized times, and that the court, where voices do not get raised in anger, can be a model for the rest of the country. “We do not interrupt one another, and we never raise voices,” Barrett said. The Washington Post has a recap of the event while PBS Newshour has video of the presentation.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito this week extended a temporary pause on a Texas law allowing state law enforcement authorities to arrest people suspected of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. His action gives the justices additional time to weigh a request by President Joe Biden's administration to freeze an order from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed the law to take effect while being challenged. The administration had sued to block the measure in January, arguing it interferes with the federal government's power to regulate immigration. Alito's new order is set to expire on March 18, extending the pause from the original expiration date of March 13, Reuters reports.

The U.S. Marshals Service has asked Congress for $38 million to fund two new programs aimed at bolstering judicial security, Reuters reports. According to the service, the request is in response to a rise in threats against federal judges and U.S. Supreme Court justices. The funding request comes as the U.S. Supreme Court included $19.4 million in its federal budget request to use its own police force rather than the U.S. Marshals Service to protect the nine justices.

The U.S. Supreme Court is seeking $19.4 million in federal funds to increase security for the nine justices and assign protection of their homes to its own police force rather than the U.S. Marshals Service, citing "evolving" risks faced by the nation's top judicial body, reports Reuters. That funding would include $5.8 million to expand the security activities of the Supreme Court Police, its in-house security force, and $13.6 million to let the court's police take over the duties currently served by the Marshals Service of protecting the justices' homes. Serious threats against federal judges rose to 457 in fiscal year 2023, from 224 in fiscal 2021, according to the U.S. Marshals Service.