SCOTUS AM

February 24, 2026 — SCOTUS Morning Report

Feb 24, 2026

0224 AM SCOTUS TT·0224 Supreme Court news Update February 24 Morning Report AM YT

Judge Eileen Cannon granted Trump's motion to permanently suppress Volume 2 of Jack Smith's report — while the earlier order denying intervenors' access is still being briefed on appeal in the Eleventh Circuit. She issued the second suppression order anyway. Bryan: "She has put the stand before the taco."

Special Counsel Jack Smith's report on whether Trump committed criminal activity exists in two volumes. Volume 1 was released; Volume 2 — covering the Florida classified documents case — remains sealed. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia and American Oversight had moved to intervene to produce the documents, but Cannon denied that motion and they appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which is still in the briefing stage. Rather than wait for the appellate court to rule on whether her first denial was correct, Cannon granted an unopposed motion (the "opposition" would be Pam Bondi's DOJ, which does not oppose sealing) to permanently block release of Volume 2. She issued a second sealing order while a first sealing order is being appealed. Bryan's read: issuing a new, broader order while the first one is under appeal irritates the court of appeals, and Trump's response brief in the intervenors' appeal isn't even due for another 30 days.

Criminal procedureFirst Amendment

Constitutional question: First Amendment right of public access to criminal proceedings — and whether a district court can insulate itself from appellate review by issuing duplicative orders on the same subject while an appeal is pending.

Enbridge Energy v. Nessel · 24-783

Michigan wants to shut down a 1953 oil pipeline running through the Straits of Mackinac. Enbridge says it has a right to remove the case to federal court. The question is whether they filed too late — and what "too late" means when you found out via a different case.

Line 5 is an oil pipeline running from northern Wisconsin through the Upper Peninsula and into Ontario, operating since 1953. Michigan has growing safety concerns and filed two essentially identical state court suits — one by the Attorney General, one by the Governor. The Governor's case was removed to federal court (and then withdrawn). The AG's case is today's question. The federal removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1446) gives defendants 30 days from the start of a case to request removal to federal court (§ 1446(b)(1)), with a restart provision: if a previously non-removable case becomes removable because something new arises, the 30-day clock resets (§ 1446(b)(3)). Enbridge filed in 2019 and didn't seek removal until 2021. They offer two theories for why their clock restarted: (1) when they won removal in the Governor's identical case in 2021, that's when they "ascertained" removability in the AG case — but the lower court noted they can't claim they didn't know the AG case was removable if they successfully removed the identical Governor case; (2) later in the AG case, the Governor filed notice revoking Enbridge's easement, raising an international law issue (Canada invoked portions of the 1977 US-Canada pipeline treaty) — but Canada filed that notice in the Governor's case 72 days before Enbridge sought removal in the AG case, which may mean they were "ascertained" of the change 72 days too early. Bryan's key insight: § 1446 is not a jurisdictional time limit (it has a built-in exception), so courts have some flexibility — but how much flexibility will depend on whether Gorsuch and Barrett want to make "ascertain" do real textual work.

Civil procedureremoval jurisdiction

Constitutional question: Not directly at issue. Structural: whether federal courts have discretion to overlook procedural removal timing when a federal question (international treaty) is genuinely in play.

← February 23, 2026 — SCOTUS Morning Report February 25, 2026 — SCOTUS Morning Report →