User:SontaranStratagems

🔗 Sources, Documentation Just some links to supporting docs re: sub posts or things that might come up on stream.

📌 Pinstiny

1. LAPSE IN APPROPS, "partial DHS shutdown" N0 change since 2/17/2026, which is amazingly stupid. --SontaranStratagems (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
2. SCOTUS DOCKET, see Judiciary section for the latest SCOTUS news. As well, fyi 💡 on WHEN DECISIONS ARE RELEASED.
3. Federal Reserve: Policy Issues in the 119th Congress, 01/14/2026
4. FY2025 Immigration Court Data: Case Outcomes, 01/12/2026
5. Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, 12/19/2025
6. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 Public law 94-583 10/21/1976

Foreign Policy

The Kennedy Doctrine

Inaugural address: "Pay any price, bear any burden"

In his inaugural address on January 20, 1961, Kennedy presented the American public with a blueprint upon which the future foreign policy initiatives of his administration would later follow and come to represent.

In the address, Kennedy warned "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." He also called upon the public to assist in "a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself."

The speech laid out clearly a vision of peace through strength and strength through international coalitions committed to the protection and expansion of the American ideals of Peace, Liberty, and Justice for all.

The Kennedy Doctrine was essentially an expansion of the foreign policy prerogatives of the administrations of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Harry S. Truman. The foreign policies of these presidents all revolved around the threat of communism and the means by which the U.S. would try containing the spread of it.

Truman Doctrine

focused on the containment of communism by providing assistance to countries resisting communism in Europe.

Eisenhower Doctrine

Was focused upon providing both military and economic assistance to nations resisting communism in the Middle East, and by increasing the flow of trade from the U.S. into Latin America. The Kennedy Doctrine was based on these same objectives, but was more concerned with the spread of communism and Soviet influence in Latin America following the Cuban Revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power under Eisenhower.

Budget & Appropriations

📌 Some factoids

1. Federal fiscal year is October 1 - September 30 — Unlike Calendar Year or Tax Year; State and Municipal fiscal year starts June 1 (in case you were wondering). These dates have both specific accounting connotations and ofc relative to Federal (or state) laws.
2. I could geek-out here, but I'll try to keep the info at the 30,000 ft level unless specified. This top section is for quick reference. --SontaranStratagems (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

FY2026: H.R.7148 — 119th Congress (2025-2026)

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 Note, short Titles from ENR HR7148, PDF also avail. XML version

• Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2026
• Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 2026
• Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2026
• Department of Labor Appropriations Act, 2026
• Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
• National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026

About HR 7148

House agreed to Senate amendment (02/03/2026)

This bill provides appropriations to several federal departments and agencies for the remainder of FY2026 and provides continuing FY2026 appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through February 13, 2026. It also extends various expiring programs and authorities.

Specifically, the bill includes 5 of the 12 regular FY2026 appropriations bills:

• the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026;
• the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026;
• the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026;
• the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2026; and
• the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026.

The departments, agencies, and activities funded in the bill include:

• Department of Defense,
• Department of Labor,
• Department of Health and Human Services,
• Department of Education,
• Department of Transportation,
• Department of Housing and Urban Development,
• Department of the Treasury,
• Executive Office of the President,
• judiciary,
• District of Columbia,
• Department of State and related programs,
• administration and oversight of foreign assistance programs,
• bilateral economic assistance,
• international security assistance,
• multilateral assistance,
• export and investment assistance, and
• OIA (other Independent agencies).

In addition, the bill includes a continuing resolution (CR) that provides continuing FY2026 appropriations to DHS through the earlier of February 13, 2026, or the enactment of the DHS appropriations act. The CR funds most DHS programs and activities at the FY2025 levels.

The bill also extends several expiring programs and authorities, including

• U.S. Grain Standards Act;
• Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s whistleblower program;
• National Flood Insurance Program;
• Forest Service's participation in the Agriculture Conservation Experienced Services Program;
• Transportation Security Administration’s Reimbursable Screening Services Program;
• Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee;
• several authorities and programs related to cybersecurity;
• technology modernization fund and board;
• U.S. Parole Commission;
• special assessment on nonindigent persons or entities convicted of certain offenses involving sexual abuse or human trafficking;
• several immigration-related programs and authorities;
• the authority for the U.S. Sentencing Commission to promulgate certain guidelines or amendments related to the * use of unmanned aircraft;
• certain bankruptcy fees;
• trade preferences for Haiti and countries in sub-Saharan Africa;
• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; and
• several health care authorities and programs.

Update: LAPSE IN DHS APPROPS, PARTIAL SHUTDOWN, February 14, 2026

NOTE: While the shutdown affects most DHS operations, critical functions continue due to existing funding and essential worker designations.

Key impacts of the shutdown:

• TSA, Coast Guard, FEMA, and border security operations continue without interruption, but employees are working without pay.
• Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) remain operational due to $75 billion in funding from last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which exceeds typical annual appropriations.
• Administrative functions, including hiring, policy rollouts, and contractor-supported projects, may slow or pause.
• Travelers may face longer security lines if TSA staffing levels decline due to prolonged pay delays.

The House and Senate are not scheduled to return until February 23, prolonging the shutdown unless a deal is reached.

Negotiations continue between Democrats and the White House, with Democrats demanding reforms such as body cameras, identification for agents, and judicial warrants for entries. The White House claims the parties are “still pretty far apart,” and no immediate resolution is expected.

Related

February 13, 👀 FY26 CR deadline. GOP, Democrats expect DHS shutdown after talks fizzle by Alexander Bolton. 02/06/26 6:00 AM ET; via The Hill. --SontaranStratagems (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Iran Sanctions Timeline

POTUS & Executive Actions

WIP ⚠️

• the EO's by Admin: Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, 🍊
  • Inserting the Iran elections shift w/ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 2005?-2013, when he restarted/lifted ban on uranium enrichment
• UN Actions, including the UNSC
• JCPOA, Obama envoy Kerry and the Iran sanctum sanctions law, followed by the 3 Obama EO's
  • 🍊 2017 actions, iirc around the time we pulled out of the JCPOA.
• Framework includes OFAC and the financial regs in the CFR

Debunking the 🍊 claim that Obama gave Iran ‘150 Billion in Cash’

- link the Pinocchios. It was their own money (frozen assets)

Obama-era

Executive Order 13553 of September 28, 2010 Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to Serious Human Rights Abuses by the Government of Iran and Taking Certain Other Actions

Executive Order 13574 of May 23, 2011 Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, as Amended

Executive Order 13590 of November 20, 2011 Authorizing the Imposition of Certain Sanctions with Respect to the Provision of Goods, Services, Technology, or Support for Iran's Energy and Petrochemical Sectors

Obama archives: Rollout materials, for Iran Nuclear Deal

Treasury's Sanctions Programs

Sanctions at Treasury

• SDN list, Specially Designated Nationals List (in PDF format) - list of individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries.
  • also lists individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers designated under programs that are not country-specific.
  • Their assets are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with them. Read more information on Treasury's Sanctions Programs.

Consolidated, the non-SDN list

Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations

=== see. the CFR

• Facilitating the efforts of the Government of Iran (GOI) to acquire or develop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) or delivery systems for WMD or to provide support for terrorist organizations or acts of international terrorism;
• Facilitating the activities of a person subject to financial sanctions pursuant to UNSCRs 1737, 1747, 1803, or 1929, or any other Security Council resolution that imposes sanctions with respect to Iran;
• Engaging in money laundering, or facilitating efforts by the Central Bank of Iran or any other Iranian financial institution, to carry out either of the facilitating activities described above; or
• Facilitating a significant transaction or transactions or providing significant financial services for: (i) the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or any of its agents or affiliates whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), or (ii) a financial institution whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to IEEPA in connection with Iran’s proliferation of WMD, Iran’s proliferation of delivery systems for WMD, or Iran’s support for international terrorism.

Immigration & Customs Enforcement

FY26 Lapse in approps looks likely for Homeland Security? 👀 *developing*

Looming DHS shutdown(?)—Both parties admit CR extension talks have failed as GOP rejects Dem restrictions on ICE amid recent Minnesota turmoil. CR deadline next Friday 2/13.

It appears the 8 Dems who voted to end the November gov shutdown won't budge this time around unless there are changes at ICE. Recall Chuck and the Dems got hell for for actually ending the longest shutdown, against another 🍊 record. The CR ends next Friday, 2/13/2026. Also remember: A DHS shutdown closes ALL of Homeland Security, e.g. TSA, FEMA, CBP, UCSIS, among others in the post-9/11 shuffle of many agencies... incl. the Coast Guard!

--SontaranStratagems (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

From The Hill this morning. Senators in both parties now expect funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to lapse at the end of next week, as negotiations over Democratic demands for restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CPB) fizzle with the GOP. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told colleagues on the Senate floor that he doesn’t see a deal coming together in the next week after Democratic leaders released their 10-point plan Wednesday night for reforming ICE.

Republicans are dismissing the Democratic demands to reform ICE and CBP in the wake of the killings of two U.S. citizens by federal law enforcement personnel in Minneapolis as “non-starters,” while Democrats are vowing to oppose another short-term DHS funding extension.

THUNE: “We’ve got a — now — one-week-and-one-day time frame in which to do this, which is entirely unrealistic, and a Democrat Party in both the House and the Senate which seems a lot less interested in getting a solution to this than they do in having a political issue."

Democrats, meanwhile, say they will not accept another short-term funding extension for Homeland Security beyond Feb. 13, when the current stopgap is due to expire.

SCHUMER: “There is nobody who’s going to ride to their rescue,” the senator said, predicting that moderate Democrats will stick with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer’s (N.Y.) negotiating position.

GOP, Democrats expect DHS shutdown after talks fizzle by Alexander Bolton. 02/06/26 6:00 AM ET; via The Hill.

Why "Abolishing ICE" is a bad idea.

Eliminating ICE would mean...

Hinder US ability to go after cartels, human trafficking rings, and cyber criminals across borders.

No Federal agency has the legal authority (both customs law and immigration law)

Economic Protections at the Border Would Go Unchecked.

Counterfeit, imports, fraud, and illicit finance would cost US businesses billions annually. In FY23, seized $10.4 million in counterfeit goods and $25.86 million in general merchandise.

Additional note: While my numbers are correct, there is a broader picture that I left out. I suppose this is important because seizures is a TP often use in the support of ice (whether that is cringe or not).

ICE’s FY 2023 enforcement actions netted nearly $1 billion in cash, cryptocurrency, and other assets, plus the $36 M in physical goods. That pushes the total seizure value well over $1 billion for the year.

Statutory authority – ICE’s seizure powers flow from the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8 U.S.C.) and related statutes (e.g., the Laken Riley Act, Pub. L. 119‑1, §1).

Congressional oversight – The FY 2023 Annual Report is mandated by the DHS Appropriations Act, 2023, which requires ICE to publish a detailed enforcement‑data report within 90 days of fiscal‑year close. This illustrates the legislative check on executive‑branch enforcement activities.

Relevance - When debating “Abolish ICE,” folks often cite the agency’s seizure totals to argue that ICE delivers tangible public‑safety and economic‑protection benefits. These are hard data. SontaranStratagems (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Diminished international cooperation in law enforcement

Would see disruption of joint investigations, weakened partnerships; the fact that we have 16 partner nations shows ICE diplomatic leverage in fighting crime globally.

No centralized body to enforce human detention practices in the US

Leading to greater legal exposure in human rights criticism.

Loss of specialized workforce expertise

20,000 of the highly trained and experienced good ICE agents would be gone with the wind. Losing institutional memory and specialized skill sets, primarily because of its unique mandate, which includes immigration, customs enforcement, and specific, relevant investigative techniques. (Note. It's hard to replace from elsewhere, as no other agency has the same mission and established operations in place. Note. Similar to problems with DOGE and some of my related criticisms, e.g. where Elon went after workforce with a sledgehammer not a scalpel...). --SontaranStratagems (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Removals & um, 💀 that are at issue are relatively small in the agency discretionary outlays

• The majority of ICE discretionary core enforcement resources are in HSI (Homeland security investigations) – recall Tiny poking fun at the jackets of the DHS agents in MN after the Shirley/Somali investigations… they were HSI.

• Only ~15% (of discretionary core enforcement spend) are for Enforcement and removal operations (ERO).

💡 Q: Does ICE do anything else apart from 🍊47's raid-hungry enforcement activities?

See Goode.

AGENCY OPERATIONS: FIVE (5) CORE PROGRAMMATIC FUNCTIONS

1. Enforcement and removal operations (ERO) - detain and remove non-citizens who pose a threat (e.g. terrorists, gang members, war criminals). Note: of the approximately 1.2 million removals in 2023, 600,000 were voluntary fill the legal obligations under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

2. HSI - human trafficking, child, exploitation, cyber crime, financial crime, narcotics, counterfeit goods, weapons, illicit opioids supply chain

3. Customs and trade enforcement - import/export compliance, seizing contraband, protecting intellectual property; forfeiture proceeds, go back into law enforcement

4. Detention standards and oversight - akin to internal affairs. Sets national detention standards, inspect facilities, handles misconduct complaints.

5. International partnerships - joint task forces, extends the US reach in law-enforcement/investigations, shares intelligence, and builds the US capacity abroad; as of FY 23, 16 partner countries.

Why Abolish is likely a non-starter

WIP ⚠️ list incl. The Hill/herding cats, would leave some legal requirements unfulfilled re: citizenship/VISAS law, lobbying

Statutory Authority

Pub. L. 119–1, §1, Jan. 29, 2025, 139 Stat. 3 The Laken Riley Act. 8 USC 1101 note.

Immigration and Nationality Act, as codified, U.S. Code – Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality)

• Gives ICE four distinct enforcement mandates (removal, criminal investigations, customs enforcement, and immigration adjudication).
• Non‑Immigration Powers – Sections § 1152 (employment visas) and § 1159 (refugee admissions) empower ICE to protect the labor market and national security beyond “cracking down on undocumented folks.”
• Congressional Intent – The act was crafted to balance openness (visa categories) with protection (inadmissibility grounds) so stripping ICE would upset that equilibrium and force Congress to rewrite huge swaths of law.

Authority to Arrest, Prosecute

While ERO primarily conducts administrative arrests for violations of US immigration law it also has the authority to make criminal arrests and initiate prosecution cases for immigration-related offenses, primarily under Title 8, but also under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Using this authority, ERO Criminal Prosecution teams work with AUSA offices to pursue violations of the U.S. Criminal Code that come to light during enforcement actions. Noncitizens who are convicted generally complete their criminal sentences. The noncitizens are subsequently taken into ICE custody for administrative immigration violations and placed into removal proceedings after completing their criminal sentences.

Cites

ICE Annual Reports – general overview of the agency’s mission, ERO priorities, and OPR oversight (APR's with the CBJ --SontaranStratagems (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC))

1. FY 2023 press release that breaks out the HSI statistics (arrests, narcotics seizures, counterfeit goods, child‑exploitation victims, etc.)
2. “2023 Year‑in‑Review” feature – details on the Transnational Criminal Investigative Units (TCIUs) expansion to 16 partner countries and other FY 2023 highlights
3. PDF of the FY 2023 Annual Report (full tables, seizure totals, arrest counts, etc.)
4. PDF of the FY 2024 Annual Report (latest seizure numbers, operational updates, and emerging priorities)

In the Subreddit

"Abolish ICE" is stupid. Here's why...

🍊 Tariffs

Soybeans and Oil Crops, China & Tariffs

U.S. Farmers Fear the Worst as China Slaps Tariffs on Soybeans. US News & World Report. By Andrew Soergel. April 4, 2018, at 1:11 p.m.

Family Farms Pushed to Get Big or Go Bust. A consolidated agricultural landscape has complicated the lives of some small- and mid-sized farmers. By Andrew Soergel. US News & World Report. April 4, 2018, at 12:01 a.m. Economic Research Service (USDA) FY-end 2019 ERS Oil Crops Outlook report, September 30, 2019

Soybean exports 2016-FY2019, post-2018 tariffs on China

The Oil Crops Yearbook

A compilation of the supply and demand statistics for oil crops, animal fats, and their respective products.

The Oil Crops Yearbook contains historical datasets on U.S. and global statistics for oilseeds, oilseeds meals, fats, and oils, including supply, use, stocks, and farm and wholesale price series. It includes some State-level oilseed acreage, yield, and production estimates. Annual international imports and exports, as well as global supply and distribution of oil crops, vegetable oils, and protein meal, are also included in this dataset.

All underlying data in the Oil Crops Yearbook are derived from USDA’s primary data sources, except for a few tables that indicate that the USDA, ERS estimates are made when reported data are unavailable.

The key purpose of the Oil Crops Yearbook is to provide the only publicly available compilation of historical supply and demand statistics for oilseeds and oilseeds products.

Soybeans

Soybean U.S. stocks: On-farm, off-farm, and total by quarter, U.S. soybean acreage planted, harvested, yield, Soybean and soybean meal production, value, price and supply and disappearance, prices 1999/00-2024/25 Download (CSV, 1.97 MB) | Download (XLSX, 274.71 KB) Last Updated 3/20/2025 Next Update 3/23/2026

Summary of U.S. Executive Tariff Actions (Jan 20–Dec 31, 2025)

Table 1. Summary of U.S. Executive Tariff Actions

Description	Affected Nation	Current Tariff Rate / Status
Actions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, Table 2)
Fentanyl-related	Canada	35% on most goods; 10% on potash and Canadian energy; United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) exemption.
Fentanyl & Migration	Mexico	25% on most goods; 10% on potash; USMCA exemption.
Fentanyl-related	China	10% on all goods; ended de minimis duty-free treatment.
Example	Example	Example
Venezuelan Oil	Designated	25% on all goods from countries designated by the Sec. of State.
Trade Deficit/	Reciprocal Global	10%-41%, by country of origin, on most goods (with exceptions); Paused: 125% on China.
Ending De Minimis Treatment	Global	Ended de minimis duty-free treatment.
Brazil's Government Policies	Brazil	40% on select goods (with exceptions).
Importing Russian Oil	India	25% on most goods (with exceptions).
Actions under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232, Table 3 and Table 4)
Steel	Global	50% globally; 25% on imports from the United Kingdom (UK).
Aluminum	Global	50% globally; 25% on imports from the UK.
Automobiles & Parts	Global	25% globally; 10% for UK;* 15% for Japan, South Korea, and EU;* some USMCA exceptions.
Copper	Global	50% globally on semi-finished copper products.
Timber/Lumber	Global	10%-25% globally; 10% for UK;* 15% for Japan, South Korea, and EU.*
Trucks and Buses	Global	10% on buses globally; 25% on trucks and truck parts globally; some USMCA exceptions.
Semiconductors	TBD	Investigation initiated (April 2025).
Pharmaceuticals	TBD	Investigation initiated (April 2025).
Critical Minerals	TBD	Investigation initiated (April 2025).
Aircraft	TBD	Investigation initiated (May 2025).
Drones	TBD	Investigation initiated (July 2025).
Polysilicon	TBD	Investigation initiated (July 2025).
Wind Turbines	TBD	Investigation initiated (August 2025).
Robotics	TBD	Investigation initiated (September 2025).
Medical Equipment	TBD	Investigation initiated (September 2025).
Actions under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301, Table 5)
China's Semiconductor Policies	China	Investigation completed. China's policies found actionable. U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) proposed no additional tariffs in 2026, and a potential rate increase in June 2027.
China's Shipping Industries	China	Investigation completed. Action of port fees and tariffs suspended.
Nicaragua's Labor Rights	Nicaragua	Investigation completed. USTR proposes tariffs beginning in 2027.
Brazil's Trade Practices	Brazil	Investigation initiated (July 2025).
China's Phase One Agreement Compliance	China	Investigation initiated (October 2025).
Foreign Digital Services Taxes	TBD	President directed USTR to consider renewing past investigation.
International Seafood	TBD	President directed USTR to consider a new investigation.

Source: CRS, compiled from official U.S. government documents. See report and tables for additional details. Notes: TBD = to be determined. EU = European Union. Many 2025 tariff actions, with exceptions, are cumulative. Details may change due to bilateral trade deals not yet implemented or other policy changes. *For UK, EU, South Korea, and Japan, auto and timber rates include most-favored nation tariffs. UK auto rates include tariff-rate quota for vehicles.

Current as of --SontaranStratagems (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Judiciary 🧑‍⚖️

💡Closer Look: When Supreme Court Opinions are Released

As noted [...], the court has indicated that it may announce opinions this morning. You may be wondering where it made that announcement and (as we are frequently asked on the live blog) if we here at SCOTUSblog know which opinion(s) to expect.

The answer to the second question is no: The Supreme Court does not announce ahead of time which cases will be decided on a particular day. Indeed, even the parties don’t know in advance when they will get a ruling in their case. The only time we have a good sense of which opinions will be issued is the very last opinion day of the term (simply by process of elimination). Based on past practice, this day typically falls at the end of June, although we can’t say for sure. (In 2024, for example, the final opinion day was in early July.)

As for opinion days, the court announces these – typically several days in advance – on the calendar on its website, where they appear as dark blue “non-argument” days (unless they overlap with a red argument day). The court also indicates in its “Today at the Court” feature that it “may” announce opinions on that particular day.

Earlier in the term, from November through April, the justices schedule opinion days as needed, almost always on previously scheduled argument days and on days, like today, when the justices were scheduled to take the bench to address other business, like Supreme Court Bar admissions. While the court can schedule an opinion day between sessions, its general practice has been not to do so. During May and June, the height of opinion season, there is usually at least one opinion day per week.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, opinions were released only on the court’s website, but now, the justices are again in the courtroom to release them (although the courtroom audio is not available live). The court posts opinions on its website as the justices announce them in the courtroom.

As stated above, the court does not announce in advance how many opinions it will release. But the method it uses to number the opinions, known as the R-number system, serves as an unofficial but reliable signal that the court has released its final opinion for the day.

Here’s how the system works: When opinions are eventually published in the U.S. Reports, the official bound version of the court’s opinions, they are published chronologically, with the opinions for a particular day published in order of the justices’ seniority. The R number, which appears to the left of the opinion date/docket number/case name on the court’s website, refers to the order in which the opinion will appear in the U.S. Reports. But because opinions are announced in order of reverse seniority, the opinions on the court’s website can’t be assigned an R number until all of the opinions have been posted. So, the posting of the R numbers on the court’s website is a sign that it has finished issuing opinions for that day.

If a case is not decided by the end of the term, it will ordinarily be reargued, although it is rare for the court to order this. Reargument usually only occurs when the justices consider a second round of argument necessary for either clarifying a legal issue raised in the case or reaching a consensus. This term, the only case to have been reargued was Louisiana v. Callais, in which the court is considering whether to curtail a major provision of the Voting Rights Act. // //

Legal Opinions, News, or Topical

In the coming week, March, 21, 2026

CASE PREVIEW Justices To Consider The Rights Of Asylum Seekers At The U.S.-Mexico Border

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a challenge to the government’s policy of systematically turning back asylum seekers before they can reach the U.S. border with Mexico. The policy at the center of the case is no longer in place, but the Trump administration calls it a “critical tool for addressing” surges in immigrants at the border.

CASE PREVIEW Justices To Consider Rules Pardoning Omissions By Bankrupt Debtors

Tuesday’s argument in Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction involves a question about bankruptcy procedure – the standards for overlooking the failure of a debtor in bankruptcy to mention one of its assets to the court.

Birthright Citizenship: Why The Text, History, And Structure Of A Landmark 1952 Statute Doom Trump’s Executive Order

In a Brothers in Law column, Akhil Amar, Vikram Amar, and Jason Mazzone analyzed the role of the text and history of 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a) – part of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act that states that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a U.S. citizen at birth – in the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship case.

THIS WEEK IN SCOTUS, February 18, 2026

5 top docket updates and 4 top cases this week.

Top Docket Updates

1. Kelly’s court win: A federal judge blocked the Pentagon’s efforts to censure Sen. Mark Kelly and lower his retirement rank in the wake of a video in which the Arizona senator and other Democrats called on service members to reject unlawful orders.
2. NY redistricting reaches SCOTUS: Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) urged the Supreme Court to stop her state judiciary from ordering a redraw of her congressional district ahead of the midterms, casting it as unconstitutional.
3. MN evidence fight: The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) said it was formally notified by the FBI that the bureau will not share any information about its investigation into the death of Alex Pretti.
4. Gateway Tunnel fight: A federal appeals court allowed a judge’s order requiring the Trump administration to resume funding for the Gateway tunnel project connecting New York and New Jersey to take effect.
5. Benghazi attack prosecution: A man facing federal charges in connection with the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans pleaded not guilty.

4 Major Legal Cases at SCOTUS this Week

Trump’s E. Jean Carroll verdict: President Trump seeks review of the jury’s verdict that found him liable for sexually assaulting writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s, which Trump denies, and ordered him to pay $5 million. The president says the jury shouldn’t have heard the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape or testimony from other women who’ve accused Trump of misconduct. He also argues he should’ve been allowed to tell jurors that a Democratic megadonor was paying Carroll’s legal bills. The case is Trump v. Carroll.

More guns: For weeks, the court has stalled announcing whether it will hear Second Amendment challenges against AR-15 and high-capacity magazine bans as well as the federal felon-in-possession law. The pileup grows this week. In Fooks v. Maryland and Mancuso v. New York, the court is asked to hear challenges to state felon-in-possession laws. And in National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont and Grant v. Higgins, it is also being petitioned to hear a challenge to Connecticut’s AR-15 ban.

NRA’s free speech fight: The National Rifle Association (NRA) is at the high court, but not on the Second Amendment. It’s about the First Amendment. In 2024, the justices unanimously ruled the gun rights group can proceed in its free speech fight against a New York regulator. When the case returned to a lower court, it again sided with the regulator. So, the NRA is back. The case is NRA v. Vullo.

For-profit college settlement: Everglades College wants the Supreme Court to revive its fight against a class-action settlement the Biden administration approved, which cancels $7.5 billion in student debt for those who alleged fraud by for-profit colleges. Lower courts ruled the college had no legal standing, meaning its right to sue over the settlement. The case is Everglades College v. McMahon. ”

January 20th: Supreme Court denies review in several gun cases

The Supreme Court on Tuesday morning turned down several petitions for review challenging the ban on the possession of guns by people who have previously been convicted of felonies. However, the justices did not act on a similar case brought by a woman convicted of passing a fake check nearly two decades ago. The announcement came as part of a list of orders released from the justices’ Jan. 16 conference. After adding four new cases to its docket for the 2025-26 term, the court did not grant any additional cases on Tuesday.

The court denied review in four cases brought by men who have been convicted of felonies – Zherka v. Bondi, Duarte v. United States, Collins v. Bondi, and Pierre v. United States. The justices did not act, however, on a petition for review filed by Melynda Vincent, a single mother who was convicted of check fraud and sentenced to probation 17 years ago for passing a fake check for $498.12 at a grocery store. Vincent was sentenced to probation. Now a licensed clinical social worker, Vincent is challenging the constitutionality of the federal felon-in-possession law as it applies to her. The Supreme Court has now considered Vincent’s case at five consecutive conferences.

The justices will meet again for another private conference on Friday, Jan. 23.

Posted in Court News, Featured, Merits Cases Cases: Vincent v. Bondi, Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation, Zherka v. Bondi, Duarte v. United States

Primer on Trump v. Cook [deprioritized, to 🧽]

Oral Arguments 1/21/2026

What is the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Its responsibilities include conducting U.S. monetary policy – that is, taking steps to achieve big-picture economic objectives, such as “price stability, full employment, and stable economic growth.”

The Fed is also an independent government agency. Unlike most agencies, it is funded primarily through interest earned on securities that it owns, rather than through the normal congressional appropriations process.

The Fed’s main governing body is its seven-member board of governors.

Who is Lisa Cook?

Cook is a 62-year-old economist with bachelor’s degrees from Spelman College and Oxford (where she was a Marshall Scholar) and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. In 2022, Cook was confirmed as a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors – the first Black woman to hold that position. In 2023, then-President Joe Biden nominated Cook to serve a new 14-year term on the board.

What are the laws governing the tenure and removal of members of the Fed’s Board of Governors?

Under the Federal Reserve Act, members of the Fed’s Board of Governors are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for staggered 14-year terms – a structure intended to prevent any single president from “stacking the deck” with his own nominees. They can only be removed by the president, and only “for cause,” a term that the law does not define.

What grounds did Trump cite in firing Cook?

Trump cited allegations that Cook had committed mortgage fraud before joining the Fed – specifically, that within the space of two weeks she had designated both a house in Michigan and a condo in Atlanta as her “primary residence” when taking out loans, which would have allowed her to receive more favorable terms. And that alleged fraud, Trump said, “[a]t a minimum … exhibits the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question [her] competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.”

In Cook’s filings in the Supreme Court, she “unequivocally” denies the accusations of mortgage fraud, and she says that she is “prepared to refute the allegations in an appropriate forum.” In September, NBC News reported that Cook described her Atlanta condo on financial forms as a “vacation home,” which would undermine the mortgage fraud allegations.

What happened in the lower courts?

Judge Jia Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order in September that required the Fed to allow Cook to remain in her job while her challenge to her firing moves forward. In Cobb’s view, Cook was “substantially likely” to succeed on her claim that the Trump administration had “violated the Federal Reserve Act because her purported removal did not comply with the statute’s ‘for cause’ requirement.” The Federal Reserve Act’s “for cause” removal provision, Cobb wrote, is best interpreted to mean that members of the board of governors can only be removed for things that they do while they are in office “and whether they have been faithfully and effectively executing their statutory duties.”

Cobb also ruled that Cook’s firing likely violated her rights under the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, because she had a property interest in her position as a member of the board of governors and therefore was entitled to be notified and have a chance to contest her firing before she was removed from

What is the issue before the Supreme Court on Wednesday?

As a technical matter, the question before the court is whether it should pause Cobb’s ruling (allowing the president to fire Cook) or instead leave it in place (allowing Cook to remain in her job) while litigation continues. But as a practical matter, a significant factor in a court’s inquiry into whether to grant temporary relief is the merits of the underlying dispute – that is, whether the president’s attempted firing of Cook was proper.

What has the Supreme Court said and done about Trump’s efforts to remove the heads of other multi-member independent agencies? In proceedings last year on its interim docket, the court allowed Trump to fire other independent agency heads, including members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, despite federal laws protecting them against removal without good cause.

What has the Supreme Court said about the Federal Reserve Board, and what was its rationale? In its order allowing the Trump administration to remove members of the NLRB and the MSPB, the majority responded to the officials’ argument that permitting their firings to stand would call into question the structure of other independent multi-member agencies, including the Federal Reserve. The majority described the Federal Reserve as “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”

What are the arguments that the Trump administration is making?

The Trump administration emphasizes that the issues before the court are narrow – and do not involve either the Fed’s independence or the constitutionality of the “for cause” removal protections for the board of governors.

Instead, the Trump administration argues, there are three questions in the case. The first is whether under either the Constitution or federal law Cook is entitled to formal notice and a hearing before she can be fired. The answer, the government says, is no. Cook does not have a constitutional right, the Trump administration says, because the Supreme Court has ruled that a public office is not the kind of “property” that can provide a right to due process before it is taken away. And if Congress had intended Cook to have a statutory right to a notice and a hearing, the Trump administration adds, it could have said so explicitly – which it has done in other laws.

Cook also pushes back against the Trump administration’s contention that she was not entitled to notice and a hearing before she could be fired. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, she notes, it was established that officials appointed under laws that established a definite term for their service and protected them against removal except “for cause” had a right to notice and a hearing. Moreover, she continues, in the court’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall made clear that “Marbury’s for-cause tenure meant he had a ‘vested legal right’ in his office.

Cook insists that history and the law support her right to remain in office until her legal challenge to Trump’s effort to fire her is finally resolved. Quoting a “friend of the court” brief filed in the case, she emphasizes that “‘from 1789 to today, courts have consistently held that executive officers threatened with or subject to unlawful removal may properly be retained in office.’”

Is Cook still at the Federal Reserve? Yes. Cook remains on the job and participated in key policy-making decisions in September, October, and December. At the September meeting, the Fed lowered interest rates for the first time since December 2024; it cut rates again at its October and December meetings.

Is this related to the criminal investigation of Jerome Powell, the chair of the Fed?

Yes and no. Even before his attempt to fire Cook, Trump had long been dissatisfied with the Fed’s reluctance to lower interest rates, and with Jerome Powell in particular. Trump had publicly mused about the prospect of firing Powell, whose term as chair (although not as a member of the board of governors) expires in May.

The criminal investigation that the Department of Justice launched against the Fed and Powell is being conducted by Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, alleging irregularities in the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s headquarters and Powell’s statements to Congress about that renovation. The White House has said that Trump did not direct Pirro to investigate Powell.

Who will be arguing at the court on Wednesday?

Sauer will represent the Trump administration. Paul Clement, who served as the solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration, will represent Cook.

CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA v. Wright, DOE Secretary.

Case No. 25-cv-03899 (APM). Filed 01/12/26. ==== Opinion & Order, against 🍊 cancellation of grants violated 5th Amendment. ====

OMB Director, Russell Vought, bragged that nearly “$8 billion in Green NewScam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled,” then listed only states that did not vote for Trump. Meanwhile on Truth Social, Trump confirmed he met with Vought to “determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut” during the shutdown.

On Monday, US District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in his opinion that the case was “unique” because ordinarily “the mere presence of political considerations in an agency action” does not mean that officials have run “afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.”

But in this case, Trump “freely” admitted that he made grant termination decisions “primarily—if not exclusively—based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024.” And that classification had “no rational relationship” to the government’s supposed interest in cutting off funding, Mehta found, which was that projects were not “economically viable” or didn’t advance the administration’s energy goals. In fact, Mehta noted that similar projects in red states continued to receive funding.

On the Hill 🏛️

2026 Midterms

I. The Basics: Current makeup of the House

✴︎TL;DR✴︎ Tiniest GOP Majorit. GOP can't lose more than 1 vote to pass a bill, assuming full attendance by both Johnson's GOP & the Minority.

1. Republican Party holds the majority in the United States House of Representatives for the 119th Congress, which began on January 3, 2025.
2. The Republican Party currently holds 217 seats, while the Democratic Party holds 214 seats, with 1 independent member and 3 vacancies.
3. The House Speaker is Mike Johnson (R), who has served since October 25, 2023.
4. The Majority Leader is Steve Scalise (R), and the Majority Whip is Tom Emmer (R).
5. The Minority Leader is Hakeem Jeffries (D), and the Minority Whip is Katherine Clark (D).
6. A majority in the House requires 218 out of 435 voting members.
7. The Republican majority is narrow, with a two-seat advantage as of the latest updates.
   

My Notes. i.e. The Speaker can't lost more than 1 vote, assuming they vote on the rule (the normal process).

Suspension of the rule--alt. way to bring the bill up for a vote (here, to avoid any GOP holdouts on a vote)--requires 2/3 of the House, i.e. Most of the Dems need to join along. Total votes needed would be 290.

Passing major legislation ahead, what speaker Johnson will be looking at

Attendance in the House.

• It's campaign season and members will want to be in their district
• Potential disengagement by any incumbent who lost their primaries

FISA Reauth

• it's up for debate this week, March 23, 2026. Boebert already said she's a hold out. Some other members said they would vote for it if the Senate passes the SAVE ACT, which is being debated this week as well. But chances of passing our doubtful.
• speaker Johnson wants a clean bill to re-authorize for another 18 months.
• Previous hold out, dude who doesn't wear a jacket, Jim from Ohio, chair of the judiciary committee, Jordan Jim Jordan. He said he is not going to be a holdout, he supports the clean bill.
• the freedom caucus says it will be talking some reforms if it comes up under the normal procedural rule.

FY 2028 Approps

FY2026 Appropriations

Appropriations Status Table: FY2026 Regular & CR's

Committee Reports, EC's

01/07/2026 — EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS; Congressional Record Vol. 172, No. 4. SENATE EC's 2417, and 2415. A communication from the Acting Deputy Division Chief, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Security Bars and Processing; Confirmation of Effective Date; Partial Withdrawal" ((RIN1615-AC57)(RIN1125-AB08)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 5, 2026; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

• A communication from the Acting Deputy Division Chief, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled "Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking to File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions" (RIN1615-AD01) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 5, 2026; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
• H. Rept. 119-198 — 119th Congress (2025-2026) — Accompanies: H.R.1327 H.R.1327 - Syria Terrorism Threat Assessment Act This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide Congress with an assessment of terrorist threats to the United States posed by individuals in Syria affiliated with either a foreign terrorist organization or a specially designated global terrorist organization.

Reference, Links to my source documentation

Ackshually!