Updating The Wall of Receipts For President Trump’s Three Appointees

Most of the analysis of how Justices votes focuses on the merits docket. But there are far more votes worth tracking. In March 2025, I published a detailed analysis of how the three Trump appointees had voted on the Court since their appointment on the interim docket and on the certiorari docket. Here, I’d like to provide an updated wall of receipts for the past fifteen months.

Rulings on the Interim Docket

This list includes recent rulings on the interim docket where Justices Thomas or Alito would have granted or denied relief, and one or more of the Trump appointees were on the other side. Again, I pick up after March 2025 where my last tally concluded.

1. A.A.R.P v. Trump (2025)- Justices Thomas and Alito would not have blocked President Trump’s removal of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the majority’s opinion, while Justices Gorsuch and Barrett were silent.
2. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (2025) – Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have allowed an Eighth Circuit ruling to go into effect finding that there is no private right of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett almost certainly voted to grant a stay. In May 2026, the Court remanded the case to the Eight Circuit in light of Callais. My suspicion was that Kavanaugh and Barrett were hoping the Section 2 issue goes away since the Band likely has no viable case after Callais.
3. National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association (2025) – Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would have allowed the executive branch to block certain DEI grants to NIH. But, Justice Barrett only granted a partial stay, denying the majority a full fifth vote.
4. South Carolina v. Doe (2025) – Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted an injunction pending appeal to allow a school to limit bathroom use based on biological sex. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett did not signal their dissent.
5. Trump v. Illinois (2025) – Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch would have allowed President Trump to deploy the National Guard to Illinois to assist in immigration enforcement. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the Court’s ruling against Trump. Justice Barrett was silent.
6. Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026) – Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, along with the Chief Justice, granted a partial victory to parents challenging California’s “gender transition” policy for students. Justices Thomas and Alito would have granted the parents’ application in full. Justice Gorsuch (likely) joined the per curiam opinion, but did not write separately.
7. GenBioPro v. Louisiana (2026) and Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana (2026) – Justices Thomas and Alito would have allowed the lower court ruling to go into effect, which blocked the shipment of mifepristone in the mails. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett likely voted to stay the Fifth Circuit’s judgment.
8. Blanche v. Perlmutter (2026) – Only Justice Thomas would have allowed President Trump to fire the head of the U.S. Copyright Office. After Slaughter, the Court denied the application rather than GVRing it.

Denials of Certiorari

This list includes the denials of certiorari where Justices Thomas and/or Justice Alito would have voted to grant the petition.

1. Speech First, Inc. v. Whitten (2025) – Justices Thomas and Alito would have reviewed the challenge to Indiana University’s “bias incidents” response team.
2. Hittle v. City of Stockton, California (2025) – Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have granted a petition to revisit the McDonnell Douglas balancing framework under Title VII.
3. Apache Stronghold v. United States (2025) – Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have reviewed a case involving the federal government’s destruction of an Indian sacred site. (Justice Alito was recused.)
4. L. M. by and through Morrison v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts (2025) – Justices Thomas and Alito would have reviewed the appeal of a student who was punished for wearing a shirt that said “There are only two genders.”
5. Snope v. Brown (2025) – Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have granted a petition to review Maryland’s ban on AR-15s. Justice Barrett was silent. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the denial of cert, but wrote “this Court should and presumably will will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.” The Court took two such cases about a year later in July 2026.
6. GHP Management Corporation v. City of Los Angeles (2025) – Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have reviewed a pandemic-era eviction moratorium as a violation of the Takings Clause.
7. Veneno v. United States (2025) – Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have reviewed a case challenging the federal government’s plenary powers over Indian tribes.
8. Hutson v. United States (2025) – Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have intervened to terminate a “longstanding and unlawful prison-building order.”
9. Alabama v. Powell (2026) – Justices Thomas and Alito would have summarily reversed an Alabama criminal case, finding there was no violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
10. United States v. Carter (2026) – Justices Thomas and Alito would have reviewed a District of Columbia policy that requires police to consider a defendant’s race.
11. Doe v. Hochul (2026) – Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would have reviewed the case of a religious healthcare worker who was fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.
12. Dershowitz v. Cable News Network (2026) – Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have granted review to reconsider the “actual malice” standard for defamation.

I will offer some commentary on this list in a future writing.

Please email me if I missed any cases.