Here’s a feel-good story for your Friday morning enjoyment: Judges and justices in Minnesota meet twice a month to “jam” in an old law library with their rock band, the Reasonable Doubts.

Plus, a note on what to expect over the next two weeks: We will be sending an abridged version of SCOTUStoday next Monday, Dec. 22 – Wednesday, Dec. 24. Given the holidays, we will not be sending SCOTUStoday on Thursday or Friday. The same pattern will repeat (three abridged editions, then two days off) Monday, Dec. 29 – Friday, Jan. 2. We will then resume our regularly scheduled programming on Monday, Jan. 5.

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• The court could issue decisions in the interim docket cases on President Donald Trump’s effort to deploy the National Guard to Illinois and a dispute between the Trump administration and immigration judges at any time.

Morning Reads

• Trump Administration Aims to Strip More Foreign-Born Americans of Citizenship (Hamed Aleaziz, The New York Times)(Paywall) — Internal guidance documents issued to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field offices and obtained by The New York Times show that the “Trump administration plans to ramp up efforts to strip some naturalized Americans of their citizenship” by asking the field offices to “supply … 100-200 denaturalization cases per month” in the year ahead as part of the administration’s broader “immigration crackdown.” Denaturalization proceedings previously have been rare, in part because past Supreme Court rulings on the issue make it difficult to strip someone of their citizenship. “In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the government must prove not only that someone had lied during the citizenship application process but that the lie had an impact on the underlying citizenship claim.”
• Florida execution of Frank Walls won’t be halted by U.S. Supreme Court (Tom McLaughlin, Pensacola News Journal)(Paywall) — The Supreme Court on Thursday “denied a stay of execution for convicted murderer Frank Walls,” clearing the way for Walls to become the 19th person executed in Florida this year, according to the Pensacola News Journal. “Walls was originally sent to Florida’s death row on Aug. 24, 1988. He had been sentenced to death for the murder of Ann Peterson and also received a life sentence for the murder on the same day of her boyfriend, Edward Alger. Walls was ultimately tied to a total of five murders.”
• Court blocks Michigan ban on conversion therapy on free speech grounds (Ed White, Associated Press) — A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on Wednesday “blocked Michigan’s ban on conversion therapy for minors who are LGBTQ+, declaring it violates the First Amendment rights of therapists and counselors,” according to the Associated Press. “The Michigan law discriminates based on viewpoint — meaning the law permits speech on a particular topic only if the speech expresses a viewpoint that the government itself approves,” Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote, joined by Judge Joan Larsen. Wednesday’s “decision comes more than two months after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a Colorado case that could resolve the issue nationwide.” In a dissenting opinion, Judge Rachel Bloomekatz wrote that the 6th Circuit “should have waited for the Supreme Court to act.”
• Supreme Court rulings, shifting federal policy create uncertainty for Colorado River basin (Alan Riquelmy, Courthouse News Service) — A deadline is looming for the Colorado River basin. “A 2007 agreement detail[ing] how Lake Powell and Lake Mead, reservoirs in the river basin, are operated,” such as how full they are kept, “expires at the end of next year,” according to Courthouse News Service. Before then, leaders in the seven states with a direct stake in the river basin’s future need to agree on new operational guidelines, but they’re struggling to navigate “recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and policy changes by the Trump administration” affecting relevant federal agencies and environmental reviews.
• A look back at the Supreme Court in 2025 (Scott Bomboy, National Constitution Center) — As 2026 rapidly approaches, the National Constitution Center is looking back at notable Supreme Court decisions from 2025. It highlighted Trump v. CASA, in which the court limited the use of universal injunctions, and United States v. Skrmetti, in which the court upheld Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors, among other cases.

A Closer Look: Locations of the Court

While the court’s current home at One First Street may seem like a timeless landmark, it’s actually less than a century old. In 1935, the Supreme Court settled in permanently to the large marble building that we know and love, after more than 140 years of bouncing around between taverns, basements, and various rooms within the Capitol.

Section 1 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 established that the Supreme Court “shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices” and also provided that the court shall meet for two sessions annually “at the seat of government.” When the justices met for the first time during the 1790 term, they did so in New York (then the nation’s capital) at the Merchants Exchange. The court held two sessions that first year, although there were no cases to hear (rather the six justices focused on organizational matters).

When Congress moved the nation’s capital to Philadelphia in 1791, the court moved with it and held its February 1791 session in Independence Hall – host of the debates over the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Shortly after, the court moved into the new City Hall and met on the ground floor of the building for most of the next nine years.

Once the seat of the federal government moved to its new, permanent home of Washington, D.C., in 1800, the justices packed up once more – and again without any provision for a place of their own. In fact, for the next 134 years, the court would bounce around locations in the U.S. Capitol. Initially, the justices were allowed to use a conference room on a lower floor but had to move to the former library of the House of Representatives due to renovations. (One problem: the library was not heated, so the court temporarily met in Long’s Tavern in Carroll Row.)

Once work on the new capital was complete, the court was given a new space below the Senate chamber, although the justices soon had to evacuate temporarily when the British set fire to the Capitol during the War of 1812. The court again found a home in a tavern, this time Bell’s Tavern. In 1817, the court returned to a room in the north wing of the Capitol until the prior chamber was once again fit for use. The court’s last move before heading to its permanent home was in 1860 when it moved up to the first floor of the Capitol Building and into the Old Senate Chamber.

As the work of the justices and their clerks picked up in the late 19th century, efforts began to persuade Congress that they needed a place of their own. With then-President and soon-to-be Chief Justice William Taft leading the charge, Congress finally agreed, appropriating $9.7 million in 1928 for the building. The architect Cass Gilbert drew up the plans for today’s structure, complete with large marble steps and a grand portico supported by Corinthian columns. The building was completed in 1935 (actually coming in under its initial budget), although neither Taft nor Gilbert lived to see it finished.

SCOTUS Quote

“It was said by Chief Justice Marshall, many years ago, that Congress could do many things, but that it could not alter a fact.”

— Justice John McLean in Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co.

On Site

From Amy Howe

How the Tariffs Could Be Refunded if the Court Sides Against Trump

It has been slightly over six weeks since the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the challenge to President Donald Trump’s power to impose sweeping tariffs in a series of executive orders earlier this year, and in addition to wondering when the court will release its decision, many court watchers are asking whether a ruling against the Trump administration would lead to refunds for importers that have already paid the tariffs. Read Amy’s analysis to understand the tariffs rebate debate.

Contributor Corner

An Off-ramp for the Court’s Next Big Gun Case

In a column for SCOTUSblog, Joel Johnson reflected on United States v. Hemani, an upcoming case in which the court will consider whether a federal statute prohibiting habitual drug users from owning guns violates the Second Amendment. “The case has been billed as the court’s next major Second Amendment battle. But it need not be,” Johnson wrote. “The court can and should avoid that constitutional thicket by resolving the case on a statutory ground.”

The post SCOTUStoday for Friday, December 19 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.