Advisory Opinions — Episode Summary Podcast: Advisory Opinions (The Dispatch)
Episode: Will SCOTUS Show Its True Colors?
Date: February 10, 2026
Hosts: Sarah Isgur and David French

Episode Overview

This episode delves into several recent and significant legal developments centered around the Supreme Court’s interim decisions, particularly redistricting cases in California and Texas, the new SCOTUSblog "interim docket stat pack", and a hotly debated 5th Circuit ruling about the indefinite detention of immigrants. The hosts also discuss transparency and consistency in emergency Supreme Court decisions, statistics showing an overwhelming “win” rate for the Trump administration on the interim docket, and the interpretation of key immigration statutes. The episode closes with a candid debate on legal professionalism after a federal lawyer, pressed by a judge, vented about her overwhelming workload.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. SCOTUS Interim Redistricting Rulings

[02:11–04:10]

• California and Texas Redistricting: The Supreme Court allowed California's redistricting map to go into effect for the 2026 midterms, denying an emergency relief petition without dissent—mirroring its earlier Texas redistricting decision.

  • Sarah: “It is not an actual appeal on the merits ... The Supreme Court's job here was just to decide whether they were going to intervene on a map for the midterm elections. I assume you are not surprised.”
  • David: “I am the most not surprised person in the history of podcasting.”
    [04:10]

• Court Defers to Politics: Both hosts agree that the Court is signaling it will largely leave gerrymandering to the political branches unless there is "Jim Crow-level evidence."

  • David: “The Supreme Court is going to be just punting this all back to politics ... Gerrymandering? Legislatures and governors. That’s who decides.”
    [05:17]

2. Consistency and “True Colors” Debate

[06:22–09:01]

• Accusations of Hypocrisy: Some on the right complain that liberal justices dissented in Texas but not in California, alleging partisan motivation.

  • Sarah: “If you see the Court as a purely political ... then, yeah, it seems hypocritical ... But this isn't Congress. The Texas case then becomes precedent.”
  • David: “You cannot look at the Court through a consistently political lens.”

• On Unexplained Votes: The hosts note we don’t know why the justices switched, but consistent application of precedent is the judicial norm.

3. The Supreme Court’s Emergency (Interim) Docket

[09:01–12:38]

• Emergency Docket Transparency:
  • David: “If it's a problem when you don't write, it's a problem when you don't write, no matter who wins.”
  • Barrett’s caution about writing opinions on the emergency docket is examined; more explanation is desired if precedent is overturned, less is needed for routine denials.

4. SCOTUSblog Interim Docket Stat Pack & What It Means

[12:38–21:28]

• Stats Breakdown (2024–2025):

  • Grant Rate: 53% of substantive applications granted (up from 23% previous term).
  • Public Disagreement: 76% had public disagreement among justices (historically just 13%).
  • Trump Admin’s Success: 90% of the Trump administration’s applications in the term were granted, though this is out of only 27 appeals.
  • Written Opinions: Up to 31% from “essentially zero” a decade ago.

• Why Not Combine Interim and Merits Stats?

  • Interim and merits dockets are qualitatively different; merging them would mislead.
  • David: “You’re making a category error if you’re combining interim docket outcomes and merits outcomes because they’re just different things.”
    [14:51]

• The Denominator Matters: There were 76+ injunctions left unappealed by Trump’s DOJ—even as they won 90% of the few cases they did bring up.

Notable Quote

• Sarah: “The administration ... pretty wise in how they picked this. And David, we’re going to learn just how smart they are ... when we go to the 5th Circuit on one of these habeas cases on immigration detention.”
  [26:29]

5. Comey & Goldsmith Defend the Federal Courts’ Independence

[17:14–21:28]

• Comey’s Bungee-Jump Analogy: After a rough descent in early 2025, the courts “snapped back” through integrity and independence.

  • Comey: “The system as a whole has stood tall.”
  • Goldsmith: “The test for the rule of law can’t be that I only get decisions I agree with.”

• Strategic Litigation: The Trump administration has only brought their “strongest” cases to the emergency docket, skewing results.

• Huge Number of Ongoing Injunctions: Suggests the courts have not simply acted as a rubber stamp.

6. 5th Circuit on Indefinite Detention — Statute Parsing and Constitutional Questions

[34:59–53:20]

• Statutory Background (IIRIRA 1996): Does “applicant for admission” mean the same as “alien seeking admission”?

  • Sarah: “It’s a Venn diagram that is a perfect circle on top of a circle.”
  • Government chose to appeal quickest and hardest where it thought it would win—a “forum shopping” strategy.
  • Sarah: “They worked pretty hard to ensure that the fifth Circuit case would come first.”
    [35:41]

• Majority vs. Dissent:

  • Majority: They’re the same; thus, millions of people—even those long-residing—can be indefinitely detained if apprehended.
  • Dissent: That leads to shocking and potentially unconstitutional results, especially for civil not criminal proceedings.
  • David: “Statutory construction is supposed to give credence to all the statutes, to harmonize ... But if you lump them together, you’re doing a disservice.”
    [39:09]

• Constitutional Concerns:

  • Indefinite detention for civil offenses raises severe 8th Amendment issues.
  • “If you're not time bound, then the 8th amendment is like this 800lb gorilla that is coming in and looming over the courts.”
    —David [52:09]

• Statutory Ambiguity:

  • Both hosts think Congress meant “applicant for admission” to be everyone who crossed illegally, but “alien seeking admission” as a present-tense verb means statute could be read differently.
  • “We have no idea what alien seeking admission means, because while they defined all these other terms, they just didn’t define that.”
    —Sarah [45:21]

7. Lawyer Candor Before the Court: “This Job Sucks” Debate

[53:20–65:13]

• Background: DOJ lawyer, overwhelmed, tells judge: “Sometimes I wish you would just hold me in contempt ... so that I can have a full 24 hours of sleep. ... The procedure in place right now sucks. ... This job sucks.”
• Reaction:
  • Some called it refreshingly honest, others (including DHS) fired her from her assignment for unprofessionalism.

Memorable Exchange

• Sarah: “If you can’t go into court and act like an officer of the court, as a professional, then you’re gonna get blown up.” [62:47]

• David: “I’ve seen a lot of informal stuff in my time ... I’ve seen more candor than this ... But, she shouldn’t have done it. She ... shouldn’t have done it.” [63:47]

• Key Point: There’s a difference between candid legal realism and crossing into disrespect or self-pity before a judge.

Episode Takeaways and Notable Quotes

• “The Supreme Court is going to be just punting this all back to politics… Gerrymandering? Legislatures and governors. That’s who decides. And if you don’t like it, do something about those people.”
  —David [05:17]

• “You’re making a category error if you’re combining interim docket outcomes and merits outcomes…”
  —David [14:51]

• “If you’re looking for the Court to agree with you 100% of the time, that’s not the rule of law. That’s the rule of you.”
  —Comey via Goldsmith [22:01]

• “If you can’t go into court and act like an officer of the court, as a professional, then you’re gonna get blown up.”
  —Sarah [62:47]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:11–04:10] — California Redistricting and interim SCOTUS decision
• [06:22–09:01] — Consistency accusations in redistricting votes
• [12:38–21:28] — SCOTUSblog’s Interim Docket Stat Pack and implications
• [34:59–53:20] — 5th Circuit: Statutory meaning of indefinite detention
• [53:20–65:13] — DOJ lawyer’s candid outburst in court: professionalism debate

For Listeners Who Missed the Episode:
This episode offered a deep dive into redistricting case politics, a landmark look at SCOTUS's opaque emergency docket, a crucial statutory battle on indefinite immigration detention, and a candid (occasionally humorous) discussion of legal professionalism. The hosts blend legal analysis with sharp wit, providing useful takeaways for lawyers and laypeople alike on how the Court is handling the law in turbulent times.