Americans are divided on major issues before the U.S. Supreme Court but most agree on one thing. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, a majority do not see the nation's top judicial body as politically neutral. Specifically, 58% disagreed that the high court is neutral while only 20% agreed. The rest did not know or did not respond. Among Democrats, only 10% agreed the court was politically neutral while 74% disagreed. Among Republicans, 29% agreed and 54% disagreed. The Supreme Court's popularity has declined since its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In 2021, 57% expressed a favorable opinion of the court. By the end of 2022, that figure had fallen to 43%. This year, 44% of respondents expressed a favorable view of the court, including 67% of Republicans and 26% of Democrats. Reuters has more on the poll’s findings.

Members of the U.S. Supreme Court press corps released a public letter Wednesday urging the court to stream audio of its opinions and oral dissents online. According to National Public Radio (NPR), the letter first was sent privately to Chief Justice John Roberts a year ago but no response has been received yet. Signatories include representatives from all major radio and television networks, newspapers and news agencies that cover the court, including NPR. Currently, when the court announces major decisions from the bench, only attorneys, public attendees and accredited press inside the courtroom hear the justices read summaries of their opinions. The letter argues that while the justices prefer the public read opinions in full, most people will not spend the hours required to do so. It adds that “in this era of misinformation, providing live audio of opinion announcements would allow the court to speak directly to the American people on issues of extraordinary importance.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it easier for people from majority backgrounds such as white or straight individuals to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination, The Hill reports. The unanimous decision revives an Ohio woman's lawsuit alleging she was illegally denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual. In another recent opinion, the court rejected Mexico’s lawsuit against firearms maker Smith & Wesson. Bloomberg Law has more on that decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up two challenges to gun control laws in Maryland and Rhode Island, according to SCOTUSblog. In each case, three justices indicated they would have granted the petition for review, leaving the challengers one vote short of the four needed for the court to hear arguments. In Snope v. Brown, the court declined to decide whether Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15 and AK-47, violates the Second Amendment. In Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, the justices rejected a challenge to Rhode Island’s ban on large-capacity magazines, which state law defines as devices capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a semiautomatic weapon.

The Supreme Court today granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to revoke former President Joe Biden’s parole program that extended legal protections to migrants from four Latin American countries, The Hill reports. Under the program, migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela could apply in advance to enter the United States and receive a two-year work permit, provided they secured a U.S.-based financial sponsor. The justices in the majority did not explain their reasoning, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing the decision ignores the significant harm to migrants now at risk of removal before the legal issues are resolved. The ruling does not affect a separate order from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani which protects other types of parole granted under the Biden administration, including for Afghans and Ukrainians. On May 19, the high court issued an emergency order allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to proceed with plans to end protected status for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans while a legal challenge to the plan moves through the appeals process.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt an order allowing migrants to challenge their deportations to South Sudan. According to the Associated Press, Massachusetts-based U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy ruled that immigrants must get the chance to raise any concerns that being sent to that country could put them in danger. The government had argued that such a requirement would be a major setback to its efforts to deport migrants who cannot be returned to their home countries. The judge also found that the administration sent eight immigrants to South Sudan without giving them the opportunity to present their case, but said it could hold those hearings in Djibouti as long as the men remained in U.S. government custody.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday issued an emergency order allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to proceed with plans to end protected status for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans while a legal challenge to the plan moves through the appeals process. The decision overturns a San Francisco-based federal district judge who put a hold on efforts to lift Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for these individuals and begin deportation proceedings. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated she would deny the application. Neither Jackson nor the majority explained their decision in the one-page order. SCOTUSblog has more on the administration’s plan and the challenge brought by the National TPS Alliance.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday extended its ban on the removal of Venezuelan men currently in immigration custody in Texas, under the Alien Enemies Act, SCOTUSblog reports. In an unsigned opinion, the justices found that the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed the detainees’ appeal of their removal based on a belief that it lacked authority to review it. The justices sent the case back to the appeals court for a determination of the procedures detainees are entitled to in order to challenge their removal. The opinion also stressed that it was not addressing the underlying question of whether detainees can be removed under the Alien Enemies Act. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas issued a dissent saying the court had “no authority to issue any relief.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a short concurring opinion arguing that the Supreme Court should have resolved the issue itself, rather than sending it back to the lower court. In March, the administration initiated efforts to remove noncitizens designated as members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua under the Alien Enemies Act. Lower courts, including those in Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington, D.C., have issued various rulings on the effort.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case involving President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship. At the center of the case is the question of whether federal judges can issue nationwide orders to block policies as legal challenges move through lower courts. According to SCOTUSblog, no clear picture emerged of how the justices will resolve that dispute. The administration in March asked the court to weigh in on preliminary injunctions imposed by lower courts. A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July according to the news source.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a brief unsigned order, has allowed the Trump administration to enforce a ban on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military, pausing a lower court order that had blocked the policy nationwide. The Department of Defense issued the ban in February, disqualifying "people with gender dysphoria" or those who had undergone related medical treatment, citing concerns over military readiness. Several transgender service members and advocates challenged the policy, and a district judge ruled it unconstitutional. Today's order granted the government's emergency request to suspend the ruling. The court's three Democratic-appointed justices dissented. SCOTUSblog has more.