“The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred a decision about whether President Trump could remove the government’s top copyright official until after the justices resolved a pair of related cases testing the president’s power to fire independent regulators,” the New York Times reports.

“The order represents a rare departure from recent cases in which the conservative majority has allowed Mr. Trump to immediately remove agency leaders while litigation over their status continues in the lower courts.”

A federal judge dismissed the criminal case against James Comey after determining that U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was not lawfully appointed.

“All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.”

The New York Times reports charges were also dismissed against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

President Trump warned the Supreme Court in a social media rant that striking down his sweeping tariffs would mean “serving hostile foreign interests.”

“A federal judge said Wednesday that he plans to ‘promptly’ move ahead with an effort to find out which Trump administration officials were responsible for flouting his orders in a high-stakes immigration case – and whether they will face punishment for their actions,” CNN reports.

President Trump asked the Supreme Court to reverse a $5 million sexual abuse and defamation judgment against him in a civil lawsuit by former Elle magazine advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, Bloomberg reports.

“The Trump administration on Monday said it still wants the Supreme Court to block lower-court decisions requiring it to pay full food assistance benefits to about 42 million Americans who rely on the nation’s largest anti-hunger program,” the Washington Post reports.

“Chief Justice John Roberts faces a defining challenge as he enters his third decade leading the Supreme Court: how far to let Donald Trump’s presidency rewrite the bounds of executive power,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“Over Trump’s first year back in office, the court has given the president wide latitude to implement his policies, through some two dozen emergency orders that paused the effect of lower-court rulings against the administration. But it hadn’t fully reviewed any of Trump’s actions until last Wednesday’s hearing on Trump’s global tariffs, where the dynamics shifted: Most justices suggested the president acted beyond his legal authority.”

“If those sentiments find their way into a ruling, it would be the court’s first real blow to Trump in more than five years. Now it is up to Roberts to cobble together a decision on a policy that Trump has portrayed as essential to the nation.”

“The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to temporarily block a court order to fully fund SNAP food aid payments amid the government shutdown,” the AP reports.

New York Times: “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has temporarily paused a lower court order that had required the Trump administration to fully fund food stamps during the government shutdown. In the order, Justice Jackson said she had issued the pause, called an administrative stay, to give the appeals court that will rule on the case more time to consider it.”

“Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced on Monday that he would attend the Supreme Court arguments this week over President Trump’s power to levy many of his tariffs, emphasizing how pivotal the case could be to Mr. Trump’s signature economic policy,” the New York Times reports.

Said Bessent: “I’m actually going to go and sit hopefully in the front row and listen, have a ringside seat.”

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called on Democrats to reform the Supreme Court should they win a “trifecta in 2028” on Monday, calling it “a broken institution” that was causing “an untold amount of damage to the fabric” of the country, Mediaite reports.

Said Holder: “I think the reality is, and it pains me to say this, I think the Supreme Court is a broken institution and it’s something that has to be, I think, a part of the national conversation in ’26 and in ’28. What are we gonna do about the Supreme Court?”

Politico: “Aides have spent weeks strategizing how to reconstitute the president’s global tariff regime if the court rules that he exceeded his authority. They’re ready to fall back on a patchwork of other trade statutes to keep pressure on U.S. trading partners and preserve billions in tariff revenue.”

“Again and again since President Trump returned to the White House, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has blessed his boundary-pushing policies, allowing them to take effect on an interim basis while litigation plays out in the lower courts,” the New York Times reports.

“But on Wednesday, the justices will consider for the first time whether to say “no” to Mr. Trump in a lasting way.”

“At issue is the legality of his signature economic policy: the use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner. The outcome of the case could significantly affect the global economy, American businesses and consumers.”

Axios: Supreme Court to decide fate of Trump’s tariffs.

CNN: Big business sits out the Supreme Court fight over Donald Trump’s tariffs.

“President Donald Trump said Sunday he won’t be in attendance at the Supreme Court this week for a pivotal legal showdown that could gut the tariff policy at the center of his economic agenda,” Politico reports.

“Trump had flirted publicly with going to the oral arguments in the tariff case Wednesday, even though such a move by a sitting president would appear unprecedented. But as he returned to the White House from Florida on Sunday, he told reporters on Air Force One that he doesn’t plan to go.”