Posted on 05/21/2026 6:45:16 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be releasing Opinions from the October 2025 this morning at 10:00.
Scotusblog will be liveblogging the release and we will be following along.
There are 33 decisions pending for this term and we expect all opinions will be released by June 30th. You can find a list of the cases here. Note: The word "held" after the case name indicates the Opinion has already been released. The word "Issues" indicates the questions to be be resolved by the Court.
There are several big cases on which we are awaiting decisions.
Trump v Slaughter.
(1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.
Little v Hecox
Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
West Virginia v P.B.J.
(1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
Wolford v Lopez
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.
United States v Hemani
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.
Watson v RNC
Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
Whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.
Trump v Barbara
Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.
Blanche v Lao
Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States.
Mullin v Doe
Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian nationals.
There are a few more cases dealing with criminal and administrative issues still awaiting decisions.
SCOTUS ping!!!
Hopefully more business for libs’ dentists after all the knashing of teeth from the opinions.
“Hopefully more business for libs’ dentists after all the knashing of teeth from the opinions.”
We can dream!
We have the first decision. It is by Justice Jackson and it is unanimous.
M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/23-1209_i3kn.pdf
This is a case about the interpretation of ERISA and in particular how to calculate unfunded vested benefits .
Just the type of case to keep Jackson busy without her interfering in a case of major national consequence. IMHO
M&K case decision:
By statute, an employer’s withdrawal liability is based on the value of the plan’s unfunded vested benefits “as of ” the last day of the plan year preceding the employer’s withdrawal, also known as the measurement date. 29 U. S. C. §1391.
The question presented in this case is whether the “as of ” language sets the measurement date as the deadline by which actuaries must select the assumptions that underlie the withdrawal-liability calculation. The Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit held that it does not, concluding that actuaries may select their assumptions after the measurement date. We agree.
Exactly
Next we have Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
It is by Thomas which means any other decisions today would be by either Thomas or Roberts.
This is a case about whether a U.S. company can recover from four cruise lines that used the docks in Havana between 2016 and 2019. The U.S. company had owned an interest in the docks that was confiscated by the Cuban government in 1960, but the interest would have expired in 2004.
The Eleventh Circuit held that Havana Docks could not recover because the interest in the docks would have expired before 2016. The court today reverses.
There is a lone dissent by Kagan.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-983_c07d.pdf
The 3rd and final case for today is Hamm v. Smith.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-872_ec8f.pdf
Issue Area
Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.
Hamm v. Smith, the death penalty case, is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Sotomayor concurs in the decision to dismiss, joined by Jackson.
Thomas dissents from the decision to dismiss; Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and in part by the chief and Gorsuch.
Hopefully, they'll do a better job than they did with homo-marriage, which led to this madness.
This was a case about how courts should analyze multiple IQ scores when a defendant claims that he is intellectually disabled and therefore cannot be executed.
“Hopefully, they’ll do a better job than they did with homo-marriage, which led to this madness.”
Let us pray.
But, we will not have the answer today because that’s it for today. We are soon going to have to have 2 or 3 opinion days a week. We still have 30 decisions yet to be released. The minor cases are being weeded out so just about everything left is of major importance.
In the Hamm case,
That leaves Smith free from execution. As the lower federal courts decided. No need to interfere when lower courts are in agreement.
Supreme Court last term sent the case of Joseph Smith back for the lower court to clarify the basis for its decision. The district court had held that Smith had shown that he was intellectually disabled, and on remand the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling.
Alito writes that in dismissing the case without deciding it, “the Court shies away from its obligation to provide workable rules for capital cases. In doing so, the Court disserves its own death-penalty jurisprudence, States’ criminal-justice systems, lower courts, and victims of horrific murders.”
This case was per curiam with no dissents.
*MY* first thought was that the REAL Justices decided to throw the dog a bone on this one ...
*MY* first thought was that the REAL Justices decided to throw the dog a bone on this one ...
I think that the real justices are all just about tired of Jackson. Including Kagan. She interrupts senior judges at oral arguments, goes off on tangents, truly doesn’t understand law, and in her dissents practically accuses them of racism. Therefore, they are now giving her “busywork”.
I thought I read that women have an organ behind their breasts that makes milk for babies. When men can demonstrate that before a race, then things are equal and men only have the advantage of different muscle mass tuned to hunting / gathering as opposed to child rearing.
“I thought I read that women have an organ behind their breasts that makes milk for babies.”
Nope. No different than men, actually. You can pump hormones into a man (prolactin) and he will lactate.
Generally speaking, when it happens “naturally”, it means the man has pituitary cancer.
Made it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.