SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3 – SCOTUSblog

Newsletter

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3, 2026

By Kelsey Dallas and Nora Collins, on Feb 3, 2026

Facebook LinkedIn X Email Print

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson just lost out on a major award to the Dalai Lama. To understand why they were in competition, look to the Morning Reads section below.

SCOTUS Quick Hits

• On Jan. 20, a group of California Republicans asked the court on its interim docket to block the state from using its new map in this year’s elections. The case is now fully briefed, and the court’s decision could come at any time.
• The court also could rule at any time on an interim docket case on California’s policies for parental notification when public school students choose to use different pronouns or a different gender identity.
• The court has not yet indicated when it will next release opinions. If the court follows its typical pattern, the earliest the next opinion day may be is Friday, Feb. 20, when the justices are next scheduled to be in the courtroom.
• The court will next hear arguments on Monday, Feb. 23, the first day of its February sitting.

Morning Reads

• How the Supreme Court Secretly Made Itself Even More Secretive (Jodi Kantor, The New York Times)(Paywall) — Citing five unnamed sources familiar with the inner workings of the Supreme Court, The New York Times reported on Monday that Chief Justice John Roberts began asking court employees to sign nondisclosure agreements in November 2024. “The chief justice acted after a series of unusual leaks of internal court documents, most notably of the decision overturning the right to abortion, and news reports about ethical lapses by the justices,” according to the Times. The nondisclosure agreements build on “softer measures” used in the past “to preserve confidentiality,” such as codes of conduct and pledges. “Former clerks and academics, told by The Times about the Supreme Court’s new nondisclosure agreements, said they were a sign that the justices felt they could no longer rely on more informal pledges or longstanding norms to guard their internal workings from public view.”
• Republican congressman introduces bill to set term limits for federal judges (Aileen Wingblad, The Oakland Press) — U.S. Rep. Tom Barrett, a Republican from Michigan, “has introduced a constitutional amendment to establish term limits for federal judges,” according to The Oakland Press. “Introduced Jan. 30, H.J. Resolution 145 — the Judicial Term Limits Amendment — would limit federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to a 20-year term. It would also prevent judges who complete a 20-year term from being reappointed to the same federal court.” In a press release, Barrett contended that ending lifetime appointments would strengthen the judiciary. “Lifetime appointments were designed to protect judicial independence, but instead have too often emboldened judges to wield their enormous power long after they should have retired. When our Constitution was ratified, 20 years practically was a lifetime appointment,” he said.
• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gets shout out but no win at Grammys (Maureen Groppe, USA Today) — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson attended the Grammys on Sunday “as a nominee for best audio book, narration and storytelling recording for the audio of her 2025 memoir ‘Lovely One,’” according to USA Today. The camera cut to her during the broadcast as host Trevor Noah joked about the power of a Supreme Court justice. “With her being here, you know what that means,” Noah said. “For the first time ever, if you lose a Grammy, you can appeal directly to the Supreme Court.” Jackson did not win the award, which went to the Dalai Lama.
• Biden Monuments Case to Focus on State Lawmakers’ Ability to Sue (Bobby Magill, Bloomberg Law) — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will hear argument on “whether state lawmakers have standing to challenge” a president’s “use of the Antiquities Act to create national monuments,” according to Bloomberg Law. If the 9th Circuit – or, eventually, the Supreme Court – holds that state legislatures have standing to sue the federal government without the support of their state’s governor or attorney general, it could pave the way toward “more litigation on many fronts,” said Dave Owen, an environmental law professor at the University of California College of the Law. Another environmental law professor, Andrew Mergen of Harvard Law School, described the case as “one to watch” because of broader uncertainty surrounding the standing doctrine. “I suspect that if the legislature loses here, they will seek Supreme Court review,” he said.
• Donald J. Trump: My Tariffs Have Brought America Back (Donald J. Trump, The Wall Street Journal)(Paywall) — In a column for The Wall Street Journal, President Donald Trump defended his trade policy, arguing that his tariffs “have created an American economic miracle.” He continued, “[W]ith the help of tariffs, we have cut that federal budget deficit by a staggering 27% in a single year, and even more incredibly, we have slashed our monthly trade deficit by an astonishing 77%—all with virtually no inflation, which everyone said could not be done. … I sincerely hope the Supreme Court is watching these numbers, because our country has never seen anything like them!”

A Closer Look: How the Black Robe Became the Supreme Court Standard

Justice Neil Gorsuch once described the court as “just nine old people in polyester black robes that we have to buy at the uniform supply store.” Nevertheless, those black robes are one of the court’s most recognizable features – some say a visual emblem of unity, others authority, and others detachment from a justice (or judge’s) personal convictions.

The judicial robe itself derives from English practice, where judges wore elaborate garments in scarlet, green, violet, or black (colors varied by season, court, or occasion) often trimmed with fur and paired with powdered wigs. In the new United States, republican ideals prompted resistance to such ornamentation (Thomas Jefferson supposedly decried the “monstrous wig” and unnecessary official apparel as remnants of the monarchy). A compromise thus took hold: colorful robes were kept, sans wigs.

The shift to plain black, some say, occurred under Chief Justice John Marshall. Others maintain it happened before Marshall got on the bench (it’s understandably a point of contention among Supreme Court nerds – if you want to read more about the “robe myth,” go here.) Either way, in his first term in 1801, Marshall appeared in a simple black silk robe while his colleagues retained more colorful or trimmed versions, generally linked to their law school affiliations. By the next year, the entire court had followed his example. 

Beyond simplicity, the black robe can carry symbolic weight, as a shared garment for the court to speak with one institutional voice. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the robe reminds justices they act not as individuals but collectively to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. Another metaphor holds that black results when all colors in the spectrum are combined, thus reminding wearers that despite personal differences, they are bound together in “this single garment, this fabric of justice.” When asked about the significance of their robes, judges also cited the robe as marking the distinction between one’s personal life and the judicial role. 

No court rule governs robe style or color; the black robe endures purely by tradition (although most judges have said they like wearing the robe). Justices purchase their own, often from commercial suppliers (such as Bentley and Simon) offering simple polyester models or custom versions with lined collars and seasonal weights. Per Politico’s profile of Bentley and Simon, “Only about 2,000 gowns are made each year; the top-of-the-line J-71 sells for about $400.”

Even within the black palette, shades can differ noticeably – some jet, others faded – due to fabric, age, or manufacturer. Justices also have occasionally introduced personal touches: Chief Justice William Rehnquist added gold stripes to his sleeves, reportedly inspired by a costume in a Gilbert and Sullivan opera where the lord chief justice wore these on his robe. Some have even commented on what justices wear under their robes. Female justices have incorporated lace jabots or distinctive collars – O’Connor with a white collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a variety of lace collars, including a notable “dissent jabot.”

But perhaps the robe is best summed up by O’Connor’s answer to people who ask if, as the first woman on the Supreme Court, she had any special preferences for the uniform of justice. “Honestly, I took whatever was available and put it on.”

SCOTUS Quote

“No man or group is above the law. Nor is any beyond its protection. These truths apply equally to the Government.” –— Justice Wiley Rutledge in United States v. United Mine Workers

Continue/Read Original Article Here: SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3 – SCOTUSblog