Judicial Ethics, Tariffs, and Court Caseload Highlight Current Legal Discussions

WASHINGTON – Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, has reintroduced legislation designed to increase transparency within the federal judiciary. The proposals seek to address conflicts of interest and allow public records requests into federal courts.

Bloomberg Law reported that two of these bills aim to prevent Supreme Court justices and lower court judges from presiding over cases in which they hold a financial interest. These measures would extend conflict of interest regulations applied to the executive branch to the judiciary and mandate that justices and judges place specific financial assets into a blind trust.

While facing a Republican-controlled Congress, the proposed legislation contributes to ongoing discussions regarding judicial ethics. Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett addressed the high court's ethics code during recent appearances before House and Senate spending committees.

### Supreme Court Caseload and Decisions

The Supreme Court currently has 25 cases scheduled for oral argument in its 2026-27 term. This figure is fewer than the 31 cases scheduled at the same point last year and 27 cases in 2024, but more than the 21 cases from the term before that.

On Monday, the court released the first of three summer order lists. It announced it will hear arguments in *Jouppi v. Alaska*, a case involving an Alaskan bush pilot challenging the forfeiture of his $95,000 airplane over a six-pack of beer. The second summer order list is anticipated on August 17.

Separately, the court denied numerous petitions for rehearing cases on Monday. A petition for rehearing filed by former President Donald Trump in *Trump v. Carroll* was not among those addressed. The petition was filed on July 8. According to analyses, the court rarely reconsiders denials of review.

### New Tariffs on Canadian Goods Announced

President Donald Trump signed orders Monday to impose a 50 percent tariff on a variety of Canadian goods, including wine, hockey sticks, cement, dairy products, plywood, paper, and furniture. The New York Times reported that these tariffs will be implemented under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

This legal provision allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on imports from countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce compared to other nations. Administration officials stated the tariffs serve as a response to Canadian discrimination against U.S. motor vehicle, dairy, and alcohol industries. The administration is reportedly preparing to issue additional global tariffs.

### Discussions on Judicial Structure and Authority

Jesse Wegman, in his Substack, discussed a Brennan Center memo regarding Supreme Court term limits. The memo argues that Congress possesses the constitutional authority, via the necessary and proper clause, to institute term limits through federal statute. This would not require a constitutional amendment. Proposed changes include 18-year terms for justices, followed by a shift to senior status where their duties would involve sitting by designation on lower federal courts.

Chris Geidner, in his Substack, highlighted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision to have the full court review the constitutionality of the federal ban on firearm possession by individuals with felony convictions. This review will focus on the commerce clause rather than the Second Amendment. Judge Stephen Higginson, in a dissenting opinion to the order granting rehearing en banc, cited Justice Clarence Thomas’s call for lower courts to address this question.

### Court’s Relationship with Executive Actions

Aziz Huq, writing in The Atlantic, analyzed the Supreme Court's decisions against two policies from the Trump administration: birthright citizenship and global tariffs. Huq suggested these rulings stem from the court's established constitutional vision rather than a moderate shift or independence. He argued the court's vision includes transforming the First Amendment to reduce campaign spending restrictions and expanding religious practices, along with recalibrating the balance of powers by granting more authority to the executive branch. Huq concluded that the court exhibits limited patience for executive actions that undermine its long-term constitutional objectives.