Supreme Court Hearings 2-9-26

In January 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court is addressing major cases, with oral arguments for the transgender sports cases scheduled for January 13, 2026. Meanwhile, decisions regarding the legality of President Trump's tariffs were still pending as of late January 2026 following arguments held in late 2025.  

Key 2026 Supreme Court Schedule Information:

Women’s Sports/Transgender Athletes Oral arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. occurred on January 13, 2026. These cases examine state laws limiting transgender girls and women from participating on female sports teams.

Tariffs: Arguments on the legality of President Trump's tariffs took place in late 2025, and as of late January 2026, the court had not yet issued a ruling, with decisions expected around January 20, 2026, or shortly thereafter.

Insurrection Act/Presidential Powers While not specifically listed for an "Insurrection Act" hearing in January, the court is addressing related executive power, such as Trump v. Cook regarding the Federal Reserve on January 21, 2026. 

The Court continues its session in 2026, with decisions released during scheduled sittings. 

Supreme Court hearings for the 2025–2026 term regarding women's sports and tariffs have already taken place, while no current merits hearing is scheduled for the Insurrection Act as of early February 2026.

Scheduled and Past Hearings

Women's Sports (Transgender Athlete Participation):

Date: January 13, 2026.

Cases: Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J..

Status: Oral arguments were completed on the scheduled date. The justices considered whether state laws limiting women's sports to biological females violate the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX.

Tariffs: Date: November 5, 2025. Case: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.

Status: Arguments are finished, and the court is currently in the opinion-writing phase. As of late January 2026, a ruling has not yet been released, leading to speculation due to the unusually long delay following the "rapidly scheduled" hearing.

Insurrection Act:

Status: There is currently no scheduled oral argument for a case specifically challenging the Insurrection Act in the 2026 merits docket.

Context: While the Act has been a major point of public and legal debate regarding executive power, related issues have mostly appeared on the Supreme Court's Emergency Docket (shadow docket) rather than as scheduled merits hearings. 

Upcoming Key Arguments

The Monthly Argument Calendar for the remainder of the term includes other major executive power cases:

Birthright Citizenship: Trump v. Barbara is scheduled for April 1, 2026.

Federal Reserve Independence: Arguments for Trump v. Cook (regarding the firing of a Fed Governor) took place on January 21, 2026. 

What are the legal arguments in Trump v. Cook?

What legal arguments were made about the Insurrection Act that reached the SCOTUS emergency docket?

https://www.google.com/search?q=when+are+supreme+court+hearings+on+women%27s+sports%2C+Insurrection+Act+and+Tariffs+scheduled+in+2026 google

Comments

The delays in the Supreme Court “process” are self-inflicted.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Supreme Court Slow Pace 2-9-26

The Supreme Court takes a long time to rule on decisions due to the high complexity of legal issues, the need for deep research, and lengthy, collaborative writing processes that can last months. Key factors include negotiating final language among justices, managing a high volume of petitions, and saving major rulings for the end of the term in June.  

Here are the specific reasons for the delay:

Complexity and Deliberation: The court handles cases with immense national significance that require careful, nuanced analysis to ensure the final opinion is precise, often resulting in months of negotiation and drafting.

Negotiation and Writing: After a case is argued, justices discuss it, and a majority opinion is drafted. This process often involves intense, back-and-forth revisions and the crafting of concurring or dissenting opinions.

The End-of-Term "Logjam": The Court often saves the most controversial and high-profile cases for the end of the term (late June), which are frequently the most complex to finalize.

Increasing Caseloads and "Shadow Docket": The Court is managing more emergency, high-profile cases (known as the "shadow docket") alongside its regular docket, causing a slower pace in issuing full, merits-based opinions.

Internal Processes: Justices use a "cert pool" system to review thousands of petitions, which adds time to selecting which cases to hear. 

Although the Court sets schedules, the time required for research, writing, and consensus-building means major decisions often take a full term (October to June) to resolve. 

Supreme Court decisions take significant time because the process is designed for consensus-building and extreme legal precision, rather than speed. While a case can be decided in as little as a month, complex or controversial ones often take up to nine months. 

Key factors causing these delays include:

Opinion Drafting and Editing: Once a preliminary vote is taken, a justice is assigned to write the majority opinion. Drafts are then circulated among all justices, who provide feedback, request changes, or write their own concurring or dissenting opinions.

Building a Majority: The lead author must often adjust the language to keep a majority of justices "signed on". If the reasoning is too narrow or broad, a justice might switch sides, potentially flipping the entire outcome.

Extensive Research: Each case requires combing through thousands of pages of trial records, lower court filings, and previous precedents. Clerks and justices conduct deep dives to ensure the final ruling has lasting purpose and weight.

Strict Term Schedule: The Court operates on a fixed term from October to late June or early July. To maintain institutional order, they typically save the most high-impact or controversial rulings for the very end of the term in June.

Internal Productivity Trends: Recent data suggests the Court has been releasing decisions more slowly than in previous years, partly due to a higher concentration of high-profile, contentious cases compared to more "mundane" ones. 

For real-time tracking of upcoming rulings, you can follow SCOTUSblog or check the official Supreme Court Case Documents.

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+does+it+take+the+supreme+court+so+long+to+rule+on+decisions+google

Comments

Basing Supreme Court Rulings on “Precedent” has become a waste of time. Focusing on “Original Intent” will improve the process and save time. The FED has had the same problem. “Looking backwards” is a mistake.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Supreme Court Reversals 2-9-26

As of late January 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court is in the midst of its 2025-2026 term, focusing on major cases regarding executive power, LGBTQ rights, and voting, with few final merits reversals issued yet. Key, early 2026 actions include a reversal on habeas corpus standards in Klein v. Martin and active consideration of cases involving the removal of a Federal Reserve board member (Trump v. Cook) and state-level voting maps.  

Key 2026 Pending Cases and Early Rulings

Klein v. Martin (Jan 26, 2026): The Court issued a per curiam decision reversing a lower court ruling that had departed from strict standards for federal habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Trump v. Cook (Argued Jan 21, 2026): The Court is reviewing whether the President can fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, potentially reversing lower court efforts to protect the Board's independence.

Louisiana v. Callais (2026 Term): The Court is considering a challenge to Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district, which could weaken the 1965 Voting Rights Act and overturn lower court findings that approved the map.

Mahmoud v. Taylor (2026 Term): The Court is reviewing a case that could force public schools to allow parents to opt out of curriculum items on religious grounds, potentially reversing lower court decisions that upheld school policies.

Transgender Student Sports Cases (Little v. Hecox, West Virginia v. B.P.J.): The Court is reviewing state bans on transgender athletes competing in sports aligning with their gender identity. 

Key Trends in 2026

Emergency Docket: The Court continues to use the "shadow docket" for temporary rulings on high-profile issues like the aforementioned Federal Reserve case.

Upcoming Decisions: Rulings on major cases regarding the 2026 elections, conversion therapy, and federal authority are expected later in the term. 

As of February 1, 2026, the Supreme Court has issued several significant reversals during its 2025–2026 term. These include both the reversal of lower court decisions and the potential overturning of established precedents. 

Recent Case Reversals (2025–2026 Term)

The court has issued 11 opinions so far this term, with a high percentage of these resulting in the reversal of lower court rulings. 

Barrett v. United States (Decided Jan 14, 2026): The Court reversed a Second Circuit judgment, holding that Congress did not authorize multiple convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j) for a single act.

Klein v. Martin (Decided Jan 26, 2026): In a per curiam opinion, the Court reversed a Fourth Circuit decision that had granted a new trial to a state prisoner, ruling the lower court departed from the strict standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Decided June 2025): Although decided just before the current calendar year, this landmark ruling invalidated the "background circumstances" rule for "reverse" discrimination claims, unanimously overturning precedent held by five federal circuit courts. 

Precedents Under Review for Overturning

Several major cases currently before the court could result in the overturning of long-standing precedents: 

Trump v. Slaughter (Independent Agencies): The justices are considering whether to overturn the 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor (1935), which protects the independence of federal agencies like the FTC and FCC from unilateral presidential dismissal.

Chiles v. Salazar (Conversion Therapy): This case challenges state bans on conversion therapy. A ruling for the challenger could overturn lower court precedents that treat such therapy as regulated medical conduct rather than protected speech.

Louisiana v. Callais (Voting Rights Act): The Court is weighing whether the intentional creation of a second majority-Black district violates the 14th Amendment. A broad ruling could significantly weaken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 

Emergency Docket Reversals

The court has also used its emergency docket to stay or reverse lower court orders: 

Noem v. Perdomo (Immigration Raids): The Court overturned a federal judge's order that had limited immigration raids in Los Angeles, allowing race to be used as one factor in immigration checks.

Trump v. Illinois (National Guard): In a rare check on executive power, the Court blocked the president's deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago for now. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+are+the+current+supreme+court+decision+reversals+in+2026+google

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Original Intent 2-9-26

In 2026, the Supreme Court, with its solid 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to continue its trend of prioritizing original intent (or original public meaning/textualism) and history and tradition over the strict adherence to longstanding precedent (stare decisis) in significant cases. 

Legal analysts and recent case outcomes indicate a court increasingly willing to re-examine and overturn prior decisions when they are deemed inconsistent with the original understanding of the Constitution. 

Key aspects of this trend:

Originalist Philosophy: A majority of the current justices either self-identify as originalists or lean heavily toward this judicial philosophy, which holds that constitutional provisions should be interpreted based on their meaning at the time they were written.

Weaker View of Stare Decisis: The court has demonstrated a "weaker version of stare decisis," viewing prior precedents as not absolute and open to being overturned if the majority believes they were wrongly decided. As one legal expert noted, an "originalist court" is "far less concerned with what earlier courts have said about the Constitution than it is about getting the law right" according to original meaning.

Overturning Longstanding Precedents: The current term is expected to address cases that could see major precedents overturned, especially those related to the power of independent agencies (like the 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey's Executor), further expanding executive power based on a strict reading of the Constitution's separation of powers.

Focus on Textualism: In statutory interpretation, textualism (focusing on the plain meaning of the text over legislative intent) is a predominant method used by the conservative majority. 

While judicial precedent (stare decisis) and textualism remain the interpretive backbone of most opinions in a general sense, the current court's willingness to re-evaluate and, at times, dismiss major non-originalist precedents in high-stakes, ideologically charged cases highlights a clear preference for originalist principles when the two methods conflict. 

In 2026, the Supreme Court is expected to continue its shift toward originalism as its primary interpretive method, often at the expense of long-standing precedent. Legal experts observe that the current conservative majority is increasingly willing to "repeal" decades of case law if they find it conflicts with the original public meaning of the Constitution. 

The Court's 2026 term includes several major cases where this tension is at the forefront: 

Executive Power: In cases like Trump v. Slaughter, the Court is being asked to ditch a 1935 precedent (Humphrey's Executor) that limited the president's power to fire independent agency heads.

Birthright Citizenship: The Court will hear a challenge to birthright citizenship on April 1, 2026, which will test originalist interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

Voting Rights: Cases like Louisiana v. Callais may force the Court to choose between adhering to established Voting Rights Act precedents and modern originalist critiques of racial gerrymandering.

Stare Decisis: While some justices like Amy Coney Barrett argue that originalists can still respect stare decisis (the doctrine of following precedent), others like Clarence Thomas suggest that settled cases are not "the gospel" and should be reconsidered if they are poorly reasoned.

Emergence of "Traditionalism": Some scholars note a move toward "traditionalism," where the Court looks at historical practices following ratification to inform original meaning, potentially bridging the gap between pure original intent and established practice. 

This approach has led critics to describe the current era as a "court of repeal," signaling that for the 2026 term, getting the law "right" according to historical meaning often takes priority over maintaining predictability through precedent.

https://www.google.com/search?q=will+the+supreme+court+focus+more+on+original+intent+instead+of+precedent+in+2026+google

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Student Prayer 2-9-26

Voluntary, student-initiated prayer is legal in public schools in 2026, as it is considered protected private religious expression under the First Amendment. Students may pray individually or in groups, provided it is not disruptive, does not interfere with others' rights, and is not school-sponsored. 

Key details regarding prayer in public schools, based on existing law and guidance as of early 2026: 

Student Rights: Students may pray, read scriptures, and engage in religious discussions during non-instructional time (e.g., lunch, recess).

Teacher/Staff Actions: Employees, including teachers and coaches, cannot lead students in prayer, nor can they coerce students to participate in religious activities. However, staff may engage in private, personal prayer while on duty if it is not coercive, following Supreme Court guidance (e.g., Kennedy v. Bremerton).

School-Sponsored Events: Schools cannot mandate or organize prayer, nor can they use school-sponsored, public-address systems for prayer at school events.

Guidelines: The U.S. Department of Education provides updated guidance on these rights, aiming to balance free speech with the establishment clause. 

Note: These regulations apply specifically to public schools and authorized charter schools, not private institutions. 

In 2026, prayer in public schools is governed by a long-standing legal distinction between private religious expression (which is legal and protected) and state-sponsored religion (which is unconstitutional). 

The following guidelines reflect the current legal landscape under the U.S. Constitution and recent Department of Education Guidance: 

What is Legal

Private Student Prayer: Students may pray voluntarily and non-disruptively during non-instructional time, such as lunch, recess, or between classes.

Student Groups: Students can organize religious clubs and prayer groups (e.g., "See You at the Pole") on the same terms as other non-curricular student clubs.

Private Employee Prayer: Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, school employees may engage in private personal prayer during the workday, provided they do not coerce or encourage students to join.

Religious Themes in Assignments: Students may express their religious beliefs in homework, artwork, and oral presentations, which must be judged by the same academic standards as secular work.

Moments of Silence: Schools may implement "moments of silence" for quiet reflection or individual prayer, provided they do not mandate or officially encourage prayer. 

What is Illegal

School-Mandated Prayer: Public school officials cannot compose official prayers or require students to participate in religious exercises.

Teacher-Led Prayer: Acting in their official capacity, teachers and administrators may not lead classes in prayer or devotional readings.

Coercion: School officials are prohibited from using their authority to persuade, compel, or pressure students to join in any religious activity.

Religious Instruction: Schools cannot provide devotional religious instruction, though they may teach about religion from an academic or historical perspective. 

Current Developments (2026)

The Trump administration, through the Department of Education, has recently issued updated guidance to further protect the "right to prayer" for students and staff. While this guidance emphasizes the protection of religious expression, it does not overturn the core Supreme Court precedents (like Engel v. Vitale) that forbid state-sponsored or mandatory school prayer. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+prayer+in+public+schools+legal+in+2026+google

Comments

The Updated Guidance by the DOE is solid. The Supreme Court should agree and remove all false precidents.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

US Homelessness 2-8-26

As of early 2026, the most recently finalized national data indicates that 771,480 people experienced homelessness in the United States on a single night in January 2024. This figure represents an 18% increase over 2023, the highest number recorded since the data collection began in 2007. 

While the comprehensive HUD report for the 2025/2026 count (Point-in-Time survey) is usually released in December, preliminary data and local counts in early 2026 suggest a potential shift in this trend:  

Potential Decline in 2025/2026: A survey of local data from 2025 (compiled in January 2026) suggests a potential decrease of roughly 3% to 7% in homelessness from the 2024 peak.

Regional Variances: Despite potential nationwide declines, some areas, such as Oregon, reported a 35% growth in homelessness since 2023.

Primary Drivers: Rising rent prices, a lack of affordable housing, poverty, and unemployment remain the primary causes of the high, though potentially cooling, numbers. 

The official 2025/2026 data is expected to be formally released by HUD later in the year, as reports on the 2025 data were still not finalized as of late January 2026. 

National homelessness data for 2026 is currently being finalized following the January 2026 Point-in-Time (PIT) count. Early indicators for 2026 suggest a possible decline in overall numbers, though figures remain near historical highs. 

Current Estimates and Trends

Most Recent Official Count (January 2024): The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported a record 771,480 individuals experiencing homelessness, an 18% increase from 2023.

Early 2025/2026 Indicators: A January 2026 analysis of preliminary data suggests a potential national decline of 3% to 5% compared to previous record levels. Significant drops were noted in cities like , Denver (25%), and Washington, D.C. (9%).

Targeted Reductions: The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) set a goal to reduce total homelessness by 25% by the 2025 PIT count (targeting fewer than 437,000 people), though data from 2024–2025 suggests actual numbers remained well above this target. 

Key Demographic Findings (2024–2025)

Families and Children: This group saw the largest increase (39%) between 2023 and 2024, with approximately 150,000 children experiencing homelessness on a given night.

Older Adults: Individuals aged 65 and older are the fastest-growing segment of the unhoused population.

Chronic Homelessness: Roughly one in three unhoused individuals (152,585 people) are considered chronically homeless, meaning they have a disability and have been homeless for over a year or repeatedly.

Veterans: A notable success area, veteran homelessness declined by 8% between 2023 and 2024 due to targeted federal investment. 

Factors Influencing 2026 Numbers

Local officials and organizations like the National Alliance to End Homelessness cite several drivers for these shifts: 

Positive Drivers: A waning "asylum seeker crisis" in major cities and increased shelter capacity.

Negative Drivers: Persistent shortages of affordable housing, the expiration of pandemic-era rental assistance, and a 30% cap on federal permanent housing investments introduced in late 2025. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+individuals+in+the+us+are+homeless+in+2026+google

Comments

Housing subsidies went to Illegals while US Homelessness was ignored in Sanctuary Cities. The peak in 2024 at 771,480 is stunning.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Homeless Addicted 2-8-26

Based on data from early 2025, approximately 18% to 26% of adults experiencing homelessness in the U.S. have a chronic substance use disorder, with some estimates suggesting up to 38% abuse alcohol. A major 2025 study found that roughly 37% of adults experiencing homelessness reported regular illicit drug use.  

Key 2025-2026 Data on Homelessness and Addiction

Substance Use Prevalence: A UCSF-led study published in February 2025 reported that while 65% of homeless adults have used drugs regularly at some point in their lives, only about 37% were actively using drugs on a regular basis (three or more times a week) in the prior six months.

Addiction as Cause/Result: While 68% of city officials reported that substance abuse is a leading cause of homelessness for single adults, many people also begin using substances as a coping mechanism after becoming homeless.

Most Common Substances: Contrary to popular belief, methamphetamine is currently more common than opioids among the homeless population, often used to stay awake, alert, and safe, according to the 2025 study.

Overdose Risks: Homeless individuals are nine times more likely to die from an opioid overdose than the general population.

Treatment Access: A significant portion of the homeless population with substance use disorders wants treatment but cannot access it. About 21% of homeless adults in a 2025 study reported trying to get treatment but were unable to. 

While total homelessness has continued to rise, reaching over 771,000 in 2024, the specific percentage of those with active addiction has remained a significant, consistent, and complex component of the overall crisis. 

Precise figures for 2026 are still being finalized as national reporting often lags, but recent data and early 2026 indicators provide the following breakdown of addiction among the U.S. homeless population: 

Substance Use Prevalence: Research published in JAMA (2025/2026) and reported by UC San Francisco indicates that approximately 37% of adults experiencing homelessness report regular illicit drug use.

Chronic Substance Use Disorder: According to KFF (September 2025), roughly 18% of adults experiencing homelessness have a chronic substance use disorder (SUD).

Alcohol vs. Drug Abuse: Historically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has estimated that 38% of homeless individuals abuse alcohol, while 26% abuse other drugs.

Total Population Context: Early January 2026 reporting suggests an overall nationwide decline of 3% to 5% in the total homeless population compared to the record high of 771,480 recorded in 2024.

Chronic Homelessness Growth: Despite the overall dip, Yahoo News reports that the number of "chronically homeless" individuals—those with a disability including substance abuse who have been homeless for a year or more—reached a record high of approximately 152,600. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+us+homeless+are+addicted+in+2026+google

Comments

Addiction can be tracked to Homelessness in 65% of the Homeless population.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader