SCOTUSGate

Massachusetts has waived its right to respond in Recchia v. Campbell, the AR-15 ban case now before the Court. The petition asks whether the Second Amendment protects semiautomatic rifles similar to those carried by regular infantry. Case No. 26-541.

Daniel Defense v. Lowy asks whether Article III traceability can rest on speech the shooter never even saw. The case tests how far plaintiffs can stretch causation to keep a claim alive. We break down what the Court is really being asked to decide.

The Supreme Court will review Arkansas's wet-signature rule for voter registration. At issue: whether requiring an original signature on registration forms violates the Materiality Provision of federal voting rights law. Cole Jester v. Get Loud Arkansas, No. 26-536.

The Court denied cert in A.A. v. Mast without comment, leaving unanswered whether nonparent caretakers have a due process right to a hearing before losing a child to adoption. The question of what process is owed remains unsettled for now.

The Court is calling for the Solicitor General's views in Saadeh v. New Jersey State Bar Association. At issue: whether a bar group's race-based leadership set-asides, illegal under state law, get First Amendment cover because they help the group "express" itself.

The Court is calling for the Solicitor General's views in Pennsylvania v. Eakin, a case asking whether requiring mail-in voters to handwrite a date on their ballot envelope violates the First or Fourteenth Amendment. No argument date yet.

The Court keeps relisting National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont without action. At issue: Connecticut's ban on AR-15-style rifles and magazines over ten rounds. No word yet on whether the justices will take up the Second Amendment challenge.

An emergency application in K.M.K. v. WIAA asks the Court to weigh in on Washington's policy letting students compete under their gender identity. The case tests whether the rule runs afoul of Title IX and the Due Process Clause for female athletes.

Apple v. Epic returns to the Court, this time over contempt. Can a party be held in civil contempt for violating an injunction's "spirit" when the order itself is silent on the conduct at issue? New analysis on the equitable limits at stake.

The Air Force wants the Court to decide whether submitting a RCRA permit renewal application counts as "final agency action" under the APA. Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan also tests NEPA's reach over hazardous waste decisions in Guam.

The Court is calling for the Solicitor General's views in Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, a fight over Iowa's state law criminalizing illegal reentry. At issue: does SF2340 run afoul of federal preemption in immigration enforcement.

The Court heard arguments in Suncor v. Boulder County, weighing whether federal law blocks state-law tort claims over climate harms from interstate and global greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome could shape the fate of similar climate suits nationwide.

The Court declined to review D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, leaving in place a ruling against a student punished for wearing "Let's Go Brandon" apparel. The case asked whether the phrase counts as profane speech schools can restrict under Bethel, or protected speech under Tinker.

Hawaii is asking for more time to respond in Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Nago, a case over NVRA voter registration records requirements. The Court has yet to act. Case No. 26-98 stays on the watch list while the extension request is pending.

John Eastman's disbarment case is drawing significant amicus attention ahead of conference. The question: can a state bar discipline an attorney for legal advice and advocacy given to a client in a politically charged dispute. Eastman v. State Bar of California, No. 26-336.

The Solicitor General has filed against recognizing a Bivens claim in Nielsen v. Watanabe, urging the Court to rein in the Ninth Circuit's approach. The case asks whether federal officers can be sued directly under the Constitution for alleged misconduct.

The amicus lineup in Perez v. San Antonio is stacked. At issue: can courts second-guess a believer's own understanding of what their faith requires? The case tests how much deference RFRA actually gives to sincere religious claims.

Chichester School District wants the Court to settle a split on IDEA exhaustion: can parents pursue FAPE denial and compensatory education claims in district court while administrative proceedings are still pending? The cert petition frames it as a first-impression question.

Salazar v. Paramount asks the Supreme Court to define "consumer" under the Video Privacy Protection Act. Does the law cover all goods or services from a provider, or only audiovisual ones? The answer could reshape who can sue over shared viewing data.

Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education heads to conference after a heavy round of amicus filings. The question: must plaintiffs prove disparate impact before courts can even weigh evidence of discriminatory intent behind neutral admissions criteria?

The DOGE discovery fight is back at the Supreme Court. At issue: whether a district court can force broad discovery against USDS to test if it counts as an "agency" under FOIA, or whether that intrudes on executive branch functions. Case No. 25-1103.

Arizona's voter-registration citizenship proof requirement heads to the Court in RNC v. Mi Familia Vota. At issue: whether the NVRA or an existing consent decree bars the state from demanding "satisfactory evidence" of citizenship. Briefs are stacking up before argument.

The Supreme Court will review Capital Group v. Pover, addressing whether ERISA Section 502(a)(2) lets 401(k) participants recover losses tied to fiduciary breaches. The case resolves a circuit split over what counts as "appropriate relief" under Section 409 for retirement plan mismanagement claims.

The Supreme Court rejected Mississippi's claim that it owns groundwater beneath its borders outright, ruling that interstate aquifers are subject to equitable apportionment just like rivers. Memphis can keep pumping. New analysis of Mississippi v. Tennessee on the blog now.

New on SCOTUSGate: Walls v. Prince George's County asks whether a property owner must first petition the legislature to change a law before bringing an as applied takings claim. The Fourth Circuit's ripeness rule splits with other circuits. Case no. 26-107.

The Court takes up whether calling something the "Big Lie" can amount to defamation when paired with imagery that conveys false factual claims. Trump v. CNN asks how far First Amendment protection extends for pejorative labels used by publishers.

Peter Navarro is asking the Supreme Court to decide what "willfully" means under 2 U.S.C. § 192. The question: must prosecutors prove he knew defying a congressional subpoena was illegal, or just that he meant to not comply? Mens rea fight heads to SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court will weigh in on whether border agents need a warrant to search your phone. Anibowei v. Blanche has drawn a crowded amicus field as advocacy groups line up on both sides of the digital privacy question.

Hoffmann v. WBI Energy asks a basic but unresolved question: when a gas company condemns land under the Natural Gas Act, what rule decides just compensation? Circuits are split. SCOTUS may finally have to settle it.

Jesenik v. United States asks whether the Ninth Circuit can bar defendants from using investor behavior evidence to prove materiality in wire fraud cases, all to avoid "victim blaming." A bright-line evidence rule that may conflict with other circuits and this Court's precedent.

Amicus filings are piling up in Olympus Spa v. Armstrong, a case testing whether a Korean women-only bathhouse can keep its single-sex nudity policy under state anti-discrimination law. The volume of outside interest suggests this one could reach beyond Washington state.

Beaird v. United States asks the Court to revisit felon gun ban 922(g)(1) on Second Amendment grounds, question the deference owed to Sentencing Guidelines commentary under Stinson, and probe what counts as a qualifying firearm for conviction. Three distinct challenges in one petition.

The Court denied review in National Small Business United v. Bessent, leaving in place the Corporate Transparency Act's beneficial ownership disclosure regime. Challengers argued Congress intruded on state authority over corporate chartering. The CTA's reporting requirements stay in effect.

Woolard v. Thurmond asks whether states can fund homeschooling with secular curricula while denying the same support to families choosing faith-based materials. The case puts the Free Exercise Clause up against state control over what counts as acceptable instruction.

The Court declined to review Maine's GPS tracking mandate for lobstermen. Frank Thompson challenged the requirement that federally-permitted fishermen submit to 24/7 location monitoring as a license condition. The First Circuit's administrative search ruling stands.

Circuits are split on how to evaluate transgender inmates' challenges to sex-based prison policies: heightened scrutiny under United States v. Virginia, or deferential review tied to legitimate penological interests. Roybal v. Griffith asks the Court to pick a standard.

The Court has narrowed Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic to a single question: does barring a religious institution from building on its own land count as a "substantial burden" under RLUIPA. A test case for how far the law protects religious construction.

The Supreme Court vacated a stay in Kenneth Nelsen, Warden v. Christa Gail Pike, clearing the way for her execution to proceed. The order removes a lower court block that had paused the case.

A flood of amicus briefs has landed in International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, No. 25-840, where the Court will weigh whether parents have standing to challenge policies that displace their role in decisions about their children's gender transitions.

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court for a stay in Trump v. Kingdom, a dispute over hormone treatment for transgender federal inmates. The case tests how far the Bureau of Prisons must go to accommodate medical care behind bars.

Kian v. Florida asks the Court to revisit whether a 6-person jury satisfies the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments for serious felony charges. Florida is one of the last holdouts on 12-person juries. Could reopen a question many thought settled since Williams v. Florida.

The Supreme Court declined to stay Christa Gail Pike's execution, leaving unresolved whether psychological terror and mental suffering can support an Eighth Amendment methods-of-execution claim. Courts remain split on the question. Pike v. Tennessee, No. 26-5696.

Stacey Ian Humphreys withdrew his last-minute challenge to Georgia's clemency procedure before the Court could act. The case questioned whether varying Board member thresholds for commutation (3 of 3, 3 of 4, or 3 of 5) treated capital applicants unequally. No ruling now expected.

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy asks whether Colorado can exclude a Catholic preschool from its universal pre-K funding over nondiscrimination rules on sexual orientation and religion. The case puts Employment Division v. Smith's exemption framework back before the Court.

The Court confronted a lingering question after Loper Bright: does Stinson's Auer-style deference to Sentencing Guidelines commentary survive? Poore v. United States asks whether judges must still defer to the Commission's gloss on its own rules, or read the Guidelines fresh.

The Supreme Court has issued an emergency stay blocking the Eighth Circuit's order in the Missouri redistricting case, People Not Politicians v. Robert Onder. The map fight stays in limbo while the justices weigh in.

The Court has granted a stay in DHS v. D.V.D., pausing lower court limits on the government's power to deport migrants to third countries. The dispute over DHS's removal authority continues as litigation proceeds.

Ted Hudacko kept one parental right after divorce: approval over gender surgery for his minor son. A state hospital allegedly performed it anyway, without notice. Now the Court weighs qualified immunity against a parent's retained legal authority. Hudacko v. Regents.

Genalo v. Black asked whether Section 1226(c) permits prolonged detention of certain criminal aliens without a bond hearing. Instead of resolving that question, the case ended in dismissal. The underlying tension from Jennings v. Rodriguez remains unsettled for now.

Fox v. Fox asks whether family courts can hold a parent in contempt for posting about their own custody case on social media. The order at issue bars sharing "any information concerning this case" at all. A broad prior restraint dressed up as a routine custody order.