The Court supposedly will be releasing one or more opinions today at 10AM eastern time.

Way too many cases to list right now, but the two that have all of the attention are

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump- Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.

Louisiana v. Callais- Whether Louisiana's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Voting Right Act)

If there is more than one opinion, it will be released soon after the preceding one and after any justice finishes reading from the opinion or his/her concurrence or dissent.

They are also released in reverse seniority with the Chief Justice always being the most "senior" regardless of time on the Court. So if Jackson has the first opinion, then the next one can come from any Justice. If the first opinion is by Alito, it means the next opinion would be either by Alito again, Thomas or the Chief.

And I'm going to add, please lets keep this thread civil and discuss the rules/merits of each case. There is enough sniping going on lately on numerous other threads.

Rapier108 said:

---

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump- Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.

---

I do not see how Trump's application of the IEEPA under the circumstances survives scrutiny. It will be interesting to see how the markets react to the SCOTUS decision, and then Trump's likely Truth Social announcement of more tariffs using a different mechanism.

Oh, and I can't help but think of this when I read the case style

Two boxes, so at least 2 opinions.

I think the IEEPA decision is likely to go at least partially against Trump here. But, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") is far from the only way the executive can impose tariffs. It's not a simple 'can Trump set tariffs as he has' question and the court majority will try to navigate away from such a broad conclusion.

2 boxes out, which means more than one opinion, and likely a long one.

Edit; scotusblog embed (generally left coverage, but fast):
https://go.arena.im/embed/chat/scotusblog/puhTB1J?popup=true
https://www.scotusblog.com

First up today is Barrett v. United States.

by Justice Jackson

Quote:

---

Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and (j).

This is a case about whether a defendant who commits a single act that violates two separate provisions of 18 USC 924 can be convicting under only one provision or the other, or instead can be convicted under two.

The court holds that Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both.

---

Not sure the exact "vote" count. It looks like a rather messy opinion with lots of concurring in parts, but not in others. Gorsuch does have a concurring opinion. Some parts of the opinion were unanimous, other parts were not. Not even going to try to unscramble it.

Oh Lord! I hope tariffs are approved!

Else there will be a big meltdown and take over by foreign countries.

Don't understand why Jackson is reading her summary of the opinion from the bench. No one dissented.

Case v. Montana up next.

Second today is Case v. Montana

9-0 by Justice Kagan

Gorsuch and Sotomayor have concurring opinions.

Quote:

---

Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.

The court holds that the "objective reasonableness" standard for warrantless entries to render emergency aid applies "without further gloss." And it was satisfied in this case, Kagan holds, becaues the police had "an objectively reasonable basis for believing" that a homeowner intended to take his own life and, indeed, may have already shot himself.

---

So nothing else today from Jackson, nor anything from Barrett, Kavanaugh, or Gorsuch.

Rapier,
Thanks again for these threads. They are some of the best informational ones we have on here.

Last today is Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections.

7-2 by Chief Justice Roberts

Jackson and Sotomayor dissent

Barrett concurs in the judgement, joined by Kagan.

Quote:

---

Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.

The court holds that as a candidate for office, Congressman Michael Bost has a legal right to sue to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.

---

nortex97 said:

---

I think the IEEPA decision is likely to go at least partially against Trump here. But, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") is far from the only way the executive can impose tariffs. It's not a simple 'can Trump set tariffs as he has' question and the court majority will try to navigate away from such a broad conclusion.

2 boxes out, which means more than one opinion, and likely a long one.

Edit; scotusblog embed (generally left coverage, but fast):
https://go.arena.im/embed/chat/scotusblog/puhTB1J?popup=true
https://www.scotusblog.com

---

Not so much anymore since it sold. Sarah Isgur is one of the mods on the live feeds, and she's definitely not a friend of the left.

Excellent

Not sure why Louisiana vs Callais is taking so long. They had all last term and half of this one to hear and analyze it.

WHere are you all watching this?

Supreme Court will not issue decision on tariffs today
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2026/01/14/supreme-court-will-not-issue-decision-on-tariffs-today.html

Teslag said:

---

Not sure why Louisiana vs Callais is taking so long. They had all last term and half of this one to hear and analyze it.

---

Since it was a rehearing, they had to start over.

I'd bet someone is slow rolling their dissent to try to drag it out long enough so it can't impact the 2026 elections.

There is no watching it, unless you get a seat in the Court on opinion day.

infinity ag said:

---

Supreme Court will not issue decision on tariffs today
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2026/01/14/supreme-court-will-not-issue-decision-on-tariffs-today.html

---

Yes, that was known 20 minutes ago after Bost v. Illinois was announced as the last opinion for the day.

The Court does not announce which opinions are being released ahead of time. They simply put them out one by one on opinion day and we get whatever they decide to serve up.

Rapier108 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Not sure why Louisiana vs Callais is taking so long. They had all last term and half of this one to hear and analyze it.

---

Since it was a rehearing, they had to start over.

I'd bet someone is slow rolling their dissent to try to drag it out long enough so it can't impact the 2026 elections.

---

C.J. Roberts could nip that in the bud unless it is his own opinion that's the hold up. As a Chief Justice, he's been very weak and feckless.

Rapier108 said:

---

There is no watching it, unless you get a seat in the Court on opinion day.

---

OK.
I thought there may be a livestream somewhere. I looked CSPAN but they want me to login.

What's the next day opinions are released or is there no set date?

ktownag08 said:

---

What's the next day opinions are released or is there no set date?

---

Nothing announced yet.

BREAKING: The US Supreme Court decides to NOT issue a highly anticipated ruling on the legality of President Trump's tariffs today.

This marks the second-straight time the ruling was not released as expected.

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) January 14, 2026

Rapier108 said:

---

Last today is Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections.

7-2 by Chief Justice Roberts

Jackson and Sotomayor dissent

Barrett concurs in the judgement, joined by Kagan.

Quote:

---

Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.

The court holds that as a candidate for office, Congressman Michael Bost has a legal right to sue to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes in his election.

---

---

If the candidate can't sue over the rules governing the race, who the hell can? What am I missing here? Why is this in dispute?

I think the IEEPA tariffs will be overturned.

I work for an import company, so we can hardly wait for the phones to start ringing off the walls from customers asking for tariff refunds if that happens.

Gonna be fun.

nortex97 said:

---

I think the IEEPA decision is likely to go at least partially against Trump here. But, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act ("IEEPA") is far from the only way the executive can impose tariffs. It's not a simple 'can Trump set tariffs as he has' question and the court majority will try to navigate away from such a broad conclusion.

2 boxes out, which means more than one opinion, and likely a long one.

Edit; scotusblog embed (generally left coverage, but fast):
https://go.arena.im/embed/chat/scotusblog/puhTB1J?popup=true
https://www.scotusblog.com

---

I'm not so sure. This SCOTUS seems more pro-separation of powers oriented. Reversing Roe and Chevron being two primary examples

One of the issues at hand is whether Congress is permitted to delegate one of its primary Constitutional responsibilities (legislating tariffs and economic and trade-related measures) to the Executive Branch and the POTUS