As we enter the three key weeks of the Supreme Court's term, a guide to what's still left to be decided, what to expect, and some of the broader takeaways.
Merriam-Webster considers it a slur (1), so if you don't intend it to be taken as a slur, it's best to avoid it.
On the other hand, a few months ago I used the term "trans-identifying man" instead of "trans woman" in a comment to another reader, explaining that I didn't believe that humans can actually change their sex, though (as I said then) I think that transgender people should be respected as individuals and shouldn't be discriminated against in employment (for example). In response, the other reader called me a "contemptible worm" and said that my comments should be suppressed. That's sadly typical of the reaction one gets these days.
Your comment illustrates one reason why the transgender movement failed to persuade (or even alienated) many people -- you take an entirely one-sided view, never even acknowledging the concerns of others.
For example, the owners and female customers of Olympus Spa (1) didn't want to share the nude bathing area with naked "trans women" (men who identity was women), for obvious reasons. The typical approach of calling anyone who has concerns a bigot is unjustified and will never win over anyone.
It also makes your argument less compelling when you use universal statements such as "Trans people are law abiding, rule following American citizens", which is no more true of trans people than it is of any other group. You can simply say "Trans people are generally law-abiding ..." rather than using a phrasing that seems to ignore, for example, the mass murderers Aiden Hale (2), Jessie Van Rootselaar (a.k.a. Jessie Strang) in Canada (3), and Robin Westman (4).
If we ever get to the point in this country where we can have honest debates about how to weigh competing interests in such matters, it will be a great relief.
I already gave an example of concerns that you don't take into account -- the concerns of the women in the Olympus Spa after the court ruling when a naked biological male was present in the hot tub. He had fully intact male genitalia, however you might define "transition".
I didn't insist that you "handle every case". I pointed out that using universal statements like the one I mentioned reinforces the impression that you're taking an entirely one-sided point of view. You're welcome to do that, but it won't help you win anyone over.
The one-sided approach to debates is prevalent on the right and the left these day, regarding almost any "hot" political topic. It makes it impossible to have productive discussions.
Helpful but anything to do with "presidential" power or authority needs the asterisk for "Republican" Presidents. Same with other entities. The Republican justices can find a reason for removing restrictions on corporations spending unlimited money in coordination with political candidates, but they'd find reasons to restrict unions from doing so.
That's the lower court undercurrent you identified. "Remember which party appointed us and rule accordingly rather than go strictly by precedent" has been a theme this term.
Steve, the transgender sports issue is not the same as the transgender bathroom case, you agree? Here in Idaho, transgenders are about to lose access to public bathrooms. Sports participation is not the same as bathroom “participation.”
This was a very useful piece by Professor Vladeck.
For those with a New York Times subscription, the link below is to their tracker for important Supreme Court cases this term. It includes polls on public opinion about the various cases.
Re Mail-in ballots—Watson v. Republican National Committee, this seems to be shaping up as another one of those Purcell-means-anything-we-say-it-means-on-any-given-day opinions. Telling states they can't set their own election rules.
Between stare decisis (violates Amdt VII) and constitutional avoidance (violates Articles V, VI, and VII, not to mention the Enacting statement) antifederalism is getting fat on our era. The House should have a word with any author of an opinion on executive actions containing no variation of, "Executive actions that initiate or alter domestic policy violate the Legislative Powers and Necessary and Proper clauses." This is a simple one. Every decision (or concurrence, ie Youngstown) that "limits" the power to legislate by fiat says it's otherwise lawful when it's categorically unlawful.
We need a SCOTUS reform that requires opinions to be issued by the end of the 2nd month after the month the Court hears the case. Delaying all these opinions until June year after year is a bad process.
Here's an odd technical glitch (?): In the Firefox browser, this page lists 44 comments but it only shows 21 comments. I refreshed the page and updated Firefox to no avail. In the Google Chrome browser, all the comments are shown. Yesterday, all the comments were shown in the Firefox browser. I wonder if this happens for others.
I am watching the Supreme Court decisions from the perspective of the Presidential Immunity decision. I fear that the Court will expand that decision in a couple of ways: 1. Holding that persons following illegal presidential orders and committing crimes are, like the president, immune from criminal prosecution. 2. Holding that DOJ lawyers who follow presidential orders to disobey Court decisions are also immune from any punishment (including contempt of court and “bar discipline.” For example, Trump is refusing to reimburse the illegally collected tariff revenues. Perhaps Trump can’t be prosecuted for withholding the reimbursements, and officials obeying his orders might be immune. Do you think that the Supreme Court will double down and expand the presidential immunity doctrine … or realize it is a can of worms that undermines the rule of law?
Merriam-Webster considers it a slur (1), so if you don't intend it to be taken as a slur, it's best to avoid it.
On the other hand, a few months ago I used the term "trans-identifying man" instead of "trans woman" in a comment to another reader, explaining that I didn't believe that humans can actually change their sex, though (as I said then) I think that transgender people should be respected as individuals and shouldn't be discriminated against in employment (for example). In response, the other reader called me a "contemptible worm" and said that my comments should be suppressed. That's sadly typical of the reaction one gets these days.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trannie
Your comment illustrates one reason why the transgender movement failed to persuade (or even alienated) many people -- you take an entirely one-sided view, never even acknowledging the concerns of others.
For example, the owners and female customers of Olympus Spa (1) didn't want to share the nude bathing area with naked "trans women" (men who identity was women), for obvious reasons. The typical approach of calling anyone who has concerns a bigot is unjustified and will never win over anyone.
It also makes your argument less compelling when you use universal statements such as "Trans people are law abiding, rule following American citizens", which is no more true of trans people than it is of any other group. You can simply say "Trans people are generally law-abiding ..." rather than using a phrasing that seems to ignore, for example, the mass murderers Aiden Hale (2), Jessie Van Rootselaar (a.k.a. Jessie Strang) in Canada (3), and Robin Westman (4).
If we ever get to the point in this country where we can have honest debates about how to weigh competing interests in such matters, it will be a great relief.
[1] https://reason.com/volokh/2025/05/29/women-only-naked-spa-lacks-first-amendment-right-to-exclude-transgender-patrons-with-penises/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting#Perpetrator
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Tumbler_Ridge_shooting#Perpetrator
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annunciation_Catholic_Church_shooting#Perpetrator
I already gave an example of concerns that you don't take into account -- the concerns of the women in the Olympus Spa after the court ruling when a naked biological male was present in the hot tub. He had fully intact male genitalia, however you might define "transition".
I didn't insist that you "handle every case". I pointed out that using universal statements like the one I mentioned reinforces the impression that you're taking an entirely one-sided point of view. You're welcome to do that, but it won't help you win anyone over.
The one-sided approach to debates is prevalent on the right and the left these day, regarding almost any "hot" political topic. It makes it impossible to have productive discussions.
So helpful, Steve, as always. Thank you for all the work you put in for us non-lawyers.
Helpful but anything to do with "presidential" power or authority needs the asterisk for "Republican" Presidents. Same with other entities. The Republican justices can find a reason for removing restrictions on corporations spending unlimited money in coordination with political candidates, but they'd find reasons to restrict unions from doing so.
That's the lower court undercurrent you identified. "Remember which party appointed us and rule accordingly rather than go strictly by precedent" has been a theme this term.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, I think Urias-Orellana v. Bondi was decided a few months ago (9-0).
Ack!! So it was. I just neglected to update my notes to cut that one out. Fixed now!
Thanks for the nudge.
A big thank you for this time consuming survey
Why is it that a Court that used to regularly issue hundreds of decisions a year down to the fifties?
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/98-why-is-the-courts-docket-shrinking
Is 58 merits cases a low number for recent years? If so, does the number of emergency/shadow docket cases explain the lower number?
Low for any term before OT2019; typical for any term since:
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/98-why-is-the-courts-docket-shrinking
TY!
The “voting rights community”? That’s everyone who isn’t a racist right?
Steve, the transgender sports issue is not the same as the transgender bathroom case, you agree? Here in Idaho, transgenders are about to lose access to public bathrooms. Sports participation is not the same as bathroom “participation.”
This was a very useful piece by Professor Vladeck.
For those with a New York Times subscription, the link below is to their tracker for important Supreme Court cases this term. It includes polls on public opinion about the various cases.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/20/us/supreme-court-major-cases-2026.html#guns
Re Mail-in ballots—Watson v. Republican National Committee, this seems to be shaping up as another one of those Purcell-means-anything-we-say-it-means-on-any-given-day opinions. Telling states they can't set their own election rules.
If they really want to go out with a bang they’ll save birthright citizenship til the end, right before the Fourth.
Hi, Steve!
Between stare decisis (violates Amdt VII) and constitutional avoidance (violates Articles V, VI, and VII, not to mention the Enacting statement) antifederalism is getting fat on our era. The House should have a word with any author of an opinion on executive actions containing no variation of, "Executive actions that initiate or alter domestic policy violate the Legislative Powers and Necessary and Proper clauses." This is a simple one. Every decision (or concurrence, ie Youngstown) that "limits" the power to legislate by fiat says it's otherwise lawful when it's categorically unlawful.
We need a SCOTUS reform that requires opinions to be issued by the end of the 2nd month after the month the Court hears the case. Delaying all these opinions until June year after year is a bad process.
Here's an odd technical glitch (?): In the Firefox browser, this page lists 44 comments but it only shows 21 comments. I refreshed the page and updated Firefox to no avail. In the Google Chrome browser, all the comments are shown. Yesterday, all the comments were shown in the Firefox browser. I wonder if this happens for others.
I am watching the Supreme Court decisions from the perspective of the Presidential Immunity decision. I fear that the Court will expand that decision in a couple of ways: 1. Holding that persons following illegal presidential orders and committing crimes are, like the president, immune from criminal prosecution. 2. Holding that DOJ lawyers who follow presidential orders to disobey Court decisions are also immune from any punishment (including contempt of court and “bar discipline.” For example, Trump is refusing to reimburse the illegally collected tariff revenues. Perhaps Trump can’t be prosecuted for withholding the reimbursements, and officials obeying his orders might be immune. Do you think that the Supreme Court will double down and expand the presidential immunity doctrine … or realize it is a can of worms that undermines the rule of law?