“The Supreme Court said on Thursday that it will hear arguments in a critical case that challenges much of President Trump’s trade agenda on Nov. 5,” Axios reports.

“The high court will determine whether the White House can unilaterally impose tariffs on a significant share of foreign goods, the linchpin of the president’s economic agenda.”

“Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can no longer oversee the prosecution of President Donald Trump in the 2020 election interference case, according to a decision issued Tuesday by the state’s highest court,” the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports.

“The ruling casts doubt on the future of the last remaining criminal prosecution of Trump.”

“Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh stressed the importance of the separation of powers in government during a rare appearance at a Texas community college Thursday, despite mounting criticism against the court for decisions favoring President Trump’s administration,” The Hill reports.

Said Kavanaugh: “The framers recognized, in a way that I think is brilliant, that preserving liberty requires separating the power. No one person or group of people should have too much power in our system.”

“Frustrated federal appeals court judges publicly wrestled Thursday with how to follow vague ‘signals’ from the Supreme Court contained in tersely worded — and often unexplained — orders handed down on the justices’ emergency docket,” Politico reports.

“Some judges on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals even questioned whether they still had a role to play or were expected, at least in some cases, to simply reiterate the high court’s orders and leave it at that.”

“The Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will take up whether President Trump can use emergency powers to justify sweeping tariffs on trading partners across the globe, agreeing to the administration’s request to hear its appeal — and fast,” The Hill reports.

“The expedited schedule will have the justices take the bench for oral arguments in the first week of November, a late addition to the calendar.”

“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

— Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion.

“The Supreme Court’s scant explanation in recent emergency decisions backing President Trump is sparking increasing debate among lower judges — and even the justices themselves,” The Hill reports.

“The Supreme Court has issued emergency decisions without explanation well before Trump took office, and several justices have long defended them.”

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was interviewed on Fox News by Brett Baier:

BAIER: The 22nd Amendment says you can only run for office for two terms.

BARRETT: True.

BAIER: You think that’s cut-and-dried?

BARRETT: Well, you know, that’s what the amendment says, right? You know, after FDR had four terms, that’s what that amendment says.

After a slew of high-profile successes in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump administration found key parts of its agenda blocked in federal court this week, with judges criticizing its actions as “unlawful” and “unconstitutional,” NBC News reports.

Susan Glasser: “From tariffs and immigration to the National Guard, federal judges are rejecting Trump’s ridiculous cover stories.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged that while the Supreme Court’s decisions are supposed to be the last word, that word isn’t always so clear, Politico reports.

Said Kavanaugh: “It’s possible we screwed up, very possible, we’re human. But it’s also possible, and oftentimes is the case, that it’s the product of nine of us, or at least five of us, trying to reach a consensus or a compromise on a particular issue that might be difficult.”

He added: “I’m fully aware that can lead to a lack of clarity in the law and can lead to some confusion, at times.”

“Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected on Thursday the notion of a U.S. constitutional crisis as President Donald Trump’s far-reaching executive actions test legal boundaries and spark tension with the judiciary,” Reuters reports.

Said Barrett: “I think that our country remains committed to the rule of law. I think we have functioning courts.”

“Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time,” NBC News reports.

“Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.”

A new Pew Research poll finds 50% of Americans currently hold an unfavorable opinion of the Supreme Court.

“Although opinions of the court have been relatively stable over the last few years, favorable views remain close to a three-decade low.”

“Today, the court’s favorable rating is 22 percentage points lower than it was in August 2020, when 70% of Americans had a positive view.”

Ankush Khardori: “Donald Trump is making a last-ditch effort to salvage his beloved, beleaguered tariff policy, heading to the Supreme Court in hopes that the Republican appointees will come to his rescue. The desperation is both palpable and warranted given the conspicuous weakness of the administration’s legal arguments, as underscored by a series of lower court rulings against him. That has in turn led the president and his aides to make increasingly histrionic public claims about what will happen if the Supreme Court does not cave and side with Trump.”

“Call it The Chicken Little Defense: If the courts do not sign off on the administration’s tariffs, it ‘would be a total disaster for the Country’ and ‘would literally destroy the United States of America,’ Trump said on Friday after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the bulk of the president’s tariffs are illegal. He doubled down on those claims on Tuesday while tacking on the transparently ridiculous assertion that the U.S. is ‘taking in $17 trillion … because of tariffs.’”