"Supreme Court’s 'Unusual' Shift From Last Two Terms" Article Reflection No. 173 (2/23/2026)

Article: “Supreme Court’s ‘Unusual’ Shift From Last Two Terms”

Reflection:

In the Newsweek article “Supreme Court’s ‘Unusual’ Shift From Last Two Terms,” journalist Jenna Sundel discusses the quick SCOTUS decision-making in the 2025-6 term’s October to January timeframe. This development contrasts with the previous trend of placing the decisions into June's ending weeks. The article then discusses the details of cases that are especially in the public’s attention, such as the case on tariffs and the current administration. 

I wonder what the driving factor behind these decisions are. Given how the cases that hold national significance and precedential value are the ones that are selected to be heard, I wonder how the national significance and precedential value are determined. In government class today, we listened to the Morse v. Frederick oral argument (via Oyez) and I learned that many of the questions the Justices ask pertain to defining, identifying, and gauging the parameters of the case. Since the oral arguments come after selecting the case and issuing the writ of certiorari, I wonder how the discussion about national significance and precedential value takes place: is the uncertainty regarding the breadth (through which to examine the case in) a factor that encourages bringing up a case to the SCOTUS? Also, while listening to the Morse v. Frederick case’s oral argument I was genuinely surprised about the variety and large quantity of hypothetical questions. I really appreciate these hypothetical questions. They’re an opportunity to apply, in theory, arguments to similar scenarios that I think would have the effect of gaining a broader, deeper understanding of the consequences in supporting one side of a case compared to the other. Law is so complex, and I genuinely think exploring its nuances has so much to learn from.