SCOTUS AM

March 24, 2026 — SCOTUS AM (March Madness Day 2)

Mar 24, 2026

0324 March Noem otro lado buddy ayers SCOTUS News Update daily AM YT

Anthropic v. Department of Defense (Hearing Update) · 26-cv-01996

The DOJ lawyer walked into court and threw Pete Hegseth under the bus before the judge could say a word.

At the afternoon hearing on Anthropic's preliminary injunction, the DOJ attorney opened by admitting that Hegseth did not have the authority to extend the Anthropic ban to other government agencies — walking back roughly 80% of what Anthropic was complaining about. The judge immediately pressed: how does anyone know they won't just change their mind back? The government waffled. The remaining argument was that the DOD retained the right to designate Anthropic a supply chain risk within its own contracts because Anthropic had used "sanctimonious rhetoric" — meaning it had asked questions about drone policy — and could therefore never be trusted again. Bryan notes the DOJ kept repeating this point. Deadline set for new filings within 24 hours.

Constitutional question: Whether the executive branch can blacklist a private contractor for protected First Amendment activity without meaningful procedural process.

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction · 25-6

Thomas Keathley filed for bankruptcy and then got in a car accident. The legal question everyone else is arguing about is the wrong one — Bryan thinks — and nobody in the courtroom knows it.

Keathley was in Chapter 13 bankruptcy when he was injured in a car wreck. He didn't disclose the potential personal injury lawsuit to the bankruptcy court, though his lawyer knew about it. His creditors should get that money — it belongs to the estate. The Fifth Circuit said he's barred from suing by judicial estoppel (you can't take two inconsistent positions in two different courts). Other circuits use a totality-of-circumstances test. Bryan's take: everyone in the case is asking the wrong question. The lawsuit belonged to the bankruptcy estate — the trustee's to bring — so what Keathley personally did or didn't do is irrelevant. It's the estate's claim, not his. He doesn't expect the court to agree with him, but he's confident he's right.

Constitutional question: None direct — procedural and equitable doctrine.

Noem v. Al Otro Lado · 25-5

The Trump administration told asylum seekers at the border that they hadn't technically "arrived in" the United States — even though they were standing at the front door.

Under federal law (8 U.S.C. 1158), anyone who is "physically present in" or "arrives in" the U.S. can apply for asylum and must be interviewed. The first Trump administration introduced "metering" at the San Ysidro port of entry, turning away asylum seekers once a daily quota was met — arguing those people hadn't "arrived in" the United States yet. The practical problem: if the formal checkpoint is closed, people are incentivized to cross the border illegally instead. The case is now at the Supreme Court, presumably to see if the policy can be revived. Bryan thinks Gorsuch and Barrett will focus on plain meaning of "arrived in" — and that the metering policy is mostly inefficient, but the grammar might appeal to the textualists.

Constitutional question: Whether administrative convenience can override a statutory right to apply for asylum — or whether plain text binds the executive regardless of operational preference.

← March 23, 2026 — SCOTUS AM (March Madness Day 1) March 25, 2026 — SCOTUS AM (March Madness Day 3) →