Posted on 05/28/2026 6:46:36 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 30 decisions pending for this term and we expect all opinions will be released by June 30th. You can find a list of the cases at October 2025 cases. Note: The word "held" after the case name indicates the Opinion has already been released. The word "Issues" indicates the questions to be resolved by the Court.
There are several big cases on which we are awaiting decisions.
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.
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.
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
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.
And several more. Let's see what we get today!
Thank you for this thread!
btt
SCOTUS ping!
“Thank you for this thread!”
You’re welcome. Opinion day is always exciting for us court-watchers. Especially this late in the term when we know the big case decisions have to come soon.
We have our first opinion.
It is Fernandez v. US. the vote is 8-1. Jackson dissents.
It is by Justice Barrett.
The case is about whether doubts about the validity of a conviction qualify as “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for relief under a federal statute that authorizes district courts to shorten prison sentences.
The court says no.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-556_8m58.pdf
The second is Rutherford, its First Step Act companion.
Also by Barrett.
Rutherford asks whether a First Step argument is proper for sentences imposed before that law was enacted, when Congress said it would be prospective.
Barrett notes that “conditions like the prisoner’s age and infirmity” have been the kind of reasons that have led to reductions in sentences under this provision.
“Fernandez’s remaining arguments echo those presented in another case, which we also decide today. See Rutherfordv. United States, ___ U. S. ___ (2026). “
Rutherford, which was 6-3. Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Jackson.
This is another case about compassionate release and extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce a sentence. The court holds in this case that the sentencing disparity created by Congress’s nonretroactive change to the mandatory penalties in 18 U.S.C. 924(c), which bars the use and carrying of a gun during a crime of violence, does not qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce a sentence.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-820_97be.pdf
We now have the 3rd decision of the day.
It is We have Pitchford v. Cain. It is by Justice Kavanaugh.
It is 5-4. Gorsuch dissents, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-7351_jiel.pdf
Issue Area
Whether, under the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that petitioner waived his right to rebut the prosecutor’s asserted race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against four black jurors.
Pitchford is big news for the criminal defense bar. Relief for a death penalty defendant in a Batson race disrimination in jury picking case. Once again, “wild card” Justices make the difference in a pro-defendant result.
Defendants win this one.
It’s criminal defense day at the Supreme Court. We are still awaiting at least one more decision.
And we have the final opinion of the day. Flowers Foods v. Brock. It is by Justice Gorsuch and it is unanimous.
Issue Area
Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce – but who do not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders – are “transportation workers” “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-935_k53m.pdf
Held: A worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for §1’s exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do. Pp. 3–8.
So none of the Opinions were “Breaking News” cases that we have been waiting for.
That was it for the day.
We are now down to 29.
Correction. We are down to 26 cases remaining.
Jackson should be impeached.
So two points.
One is that I think the other justices have just put Jackson in the corner and given her some coloring books and crayons to keep her busy. Let her write her dissents but don’t give her anything important to do.
The other point is that the fewer Opinions we get from Alito and Thomas on these smaller cases, means there is a greater chance they are writing the decisions in some of the more important cases. [Praying]
She’s the living breathing definition of tokenism.
She’s the living breathing definition of tokenism.
She is for sure. Can you imagine the frustration of the other justices having to sit at a table with her to discuss cases before the court?
Imagine her vs Thomas. I can just picture him rolling his eyes. It’s hard to have a constructive conversation with someone of such low intelligence.
Made it! Appreciate the thread!
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.