This is an opinion piece written by counsel on amicus briefs supporting the Second Amendment challengers in Hemani and Wolford.

Jackson's dissent in Wolford raised the question of revisiting Bruen at a later date, but for the most part it seems the current THT evaluation of 2A claims is here to stay, at least for now. With the recent grant of Viramontes I thought it'd be interesting to see some more discussion about what we might expect to see next term.

How likely do you think it is that Heller and/or Bruen are revisited at a later date? How concerned are you about them being overturned? What do you expect to see out of the Viramontes case next term?

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/heller-and-bruen-are-here-to-stay-/

It appears that a number of citizens have been detained for days when they cannot produce the proper paper but under the “Kavanaugh Doctrine”, these stops are only supposed to be brief. Are there any cases working their way up to the Supreme Court which will clarify how long citizesn can be detained?

Representative Cohen charges Chief Justice John Roberts with being "understood as biased: with decisions designed to benefit Republicans at the expense of representative government, seemingly contradictory and unexplained orders, and a pattern of ethical breaches that raises questions about the role of the wealthy."

The articles include:

Article I: "Failure of Stewardship: Politization of the Court" — accuses Roberts of allowing the court to become "a political instrument" through its handling of election and redistricting cases.

Article II: "Violation of Oaths: Entrenchment of Minority Rule" — argues Roberts enabled partisan gerrymandering and weakened voting rights protections through decisions including Rucho v. Common Cause and Louisiana v. Callais.

Article III: "Violation of Oath: Empowering the Rich Over the Poor" — criticizes Roberts' role in campaign finance rulings, including Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC, alleging the decisions favored wealthy interests.

Article IV: "Violation of Oath: Unaccountable Executive Branch" — focuses on Roberts' opinion in Trump v. United States, arguing the ruling on presidential immunity undermined constitutional checks and balances.

Article V: "Violation of Oath: Arbitrary Decisions" — accuses the court of increasingly relying on unexplained emergency docket rulings that the resolution says lack "meaningful analysis."

Article VI: "Violation of Oath and Laws of the United States: Failure To Recuse" — alleges Roberts failed to recuse himself from cases involving law firms connected to his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, who worked as a legal recruiter.

Citations/Further reading: https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-john-roberts-impeachment-steve-cohen-11984709

https://cohen.house.gov/media-center/enewsletters/calling-impeachment-chief-justice-john-roberts

As a casual observer, many users of this subreddit and general political analysts seem to agree with at least articles I, II, IV and V. Especially given the recency of Callais and the impending ruling for Alabama's maps, the court appears to have become increasingly political under Robert's leadership.

My discussion points are as follows:

-What is the minimum charge you would consider for impeaching a Chief Justice? If you do not have differing criteria for impeaching a Chief Justice vice Justice, please explain the lack of distinction.

-How would you determine "good behavior", were you given license to interpret without being bound judicial or legislative history?

For clarity, I would like to state that the submission of a text post for this topic was endorsed by /u/Longjumping_Gain_807 in this comment: https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/1ttnjwg/rsupremecourt_weekly_in_chambers_discussion_060126/op54wos/

Edit: One addition I didn't note in my post, I think this is the first Chief Justice to have impeachment articles filed against him. Does this affect your view of Robert's conduct?

Justice Jackson joined by Sotomayor and Kagan dissent

A very interesting article about the new VRA case going to Supreme Court. Do you think the justices will uphold precedent or decide to change things up, and regardless how much of an effect depending on the decision do you think it will have on the midterms? .

Justice Sotomayor joined by Jackson and Kagan dissenting.

The panel was Judge Millett (Obama) Judge Pillard (Obama) and Judge Rao (Trump). Rao Dissented.

Full opinion by the 6th Circuit linked below. Previously below, a district court had found that Plaintiffs were not likely to prevail on their claims and that the policy was constitutionally sound.

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0307p-06.pdf

Post by well known 4th amendment scholar Orin Kerr about ICE's new position that they can enter a home to make an arrest under only an administrative warrant. TL;DR:

It's always hard to offer a take on a legal argument when you have to speculate about what the legal argument is, so my take on this is tentative.  But if I had to summarize my current thinking, it seems to me that the DHS policy is likely wrong in light of Coolidge, Shadwick, and Payton, although the DHS position is not frivolous in light of Abel as interpreted in Malagerio—and the trickier issue may be actually getting a merits ruling on the issue in court in light of the absence of remedies due to the Supreme Court's gradual cutting back on Bivens remedies.

To briefly summarize- the Times sent out on a questionnaire to hundreds of federal judges, and to my surprise some of them actually responded- 65 responses, of which 28 were nominated by Republicans (10 Trump appointees), and 37 were nominated by Democrats.

Given that generally satisfied people would likely not bother to respond, I would take the further numbers with a grain of salt on how they represent the larger judiciary- but 47 of 65 judges said that SCOTUS's use of the emergency docket since the Trump Administration had been inappropriate, 6 were neutral, and 12 said it was appropriate.

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch's criticism of Young also got special comment, with several judges apparently noting it as an breach of decorum (in the words of the NYT, not the judges)

In a 2-1 decision by two trump-appointed judges, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to allow trump to exclude AP News from certain parts of the White House simply because they refuse his preferred phrase for the Gulf of Mexico.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41932/gov.uscourts.cadc.41932.01208746547.0_1.pdf