And no extenuating circumstances if you get lost on the way...
Posted on 06/25/2026 6:44:08 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 12 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.
You can find the Opinions on this term's previously decided cases at October 2025 Opinions. Today's opinions will be uploaded just after the case is announced from the bench.
Chief Roberts has written 3 opinions, Thomas 6, Alito 3, Sotomayor 6, Kagan 5, Gorsuch 7, Kavanaugh 3, Barret 6, and Jackson 6. There have been 10 per curiam.
There are several big cases on which we are awaiting decisions.
After opinion announcements on Thursday, the justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review.
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.
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.
Mullin v Doe
Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian nationals.
And a few more.
Remember, opinions are released in reverse senority order. If the first opinion is from Kavanaugh, then we will not hear from Barrett or Jackson today.
Let's see what we get this morning!
Thank you!
L
Put it in their time...If your wagon breaks down and you can't get to the polling place until after election day...it's too bad.
I’m hoping that is their decision. If not, there is no limit to how long votes can be counted. Six months? A year?
Two boxes of opinions today. Three or four opinions? Five if they are short ones.
Someone will provide a summary early on.
And no extenuating circumstances if you get lost on the way...
First opinion is Monsanto v. Durnell.
The vote is 7-2. It is by Kavanaugh.
Issue Area
Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.
Jackson dissents, joined by Gorsuch.
This is a case about whether a federal law – the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act – that regulates the use, sale, and labeling of pesticides – bars a lawsuit against Monsanto, the maker of Roundup weedkiller, for failing to include a warning on the label about the risks of cancer. The EPA did not require Monsanto to include such a warning, and the agency has said that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, does NOT cause cancer.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1068_n7ip.pdf
Held: FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn
claim because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warn
Elizabeth explained...I told him to ask for directions...but noooo...he knew the cabin was just ahead....and that’s how we ended up in Joisey.
Held: FIFRA expressly preempts Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn
claim because the claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to Roundup’s label.
The court reverses the ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals for Durnell and sends the case back to the lower court for “further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
Justice Alito has three opinions. The first is Wolford v. Lopez, Hawaii guns.
The vote is 6-3
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf
The court holds that the Hawaii law is unconstitutional.
This case was a challenge to the constitutionality of a Hawaii law that bars gun owners with concealed-carry permits from bringing their guns on to private property unless they have affirmative permission from the owner.
Alito writes that the “regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives.”
Kagan dissents alone.
Jackson dissents, joined by Sotomayor.
Excellent...Common sense...
Horay!
“Kagan dissents alone.
“Jackson dissents, joined by Sotomayor.”
So Kagan did NOT dissent alone? (I’m confused.)
Next up is Mullin v. Al Otro Lado.
The vote is 6-3.
This case challenges the federal government’s policy of systematically turning back asylum seekers before they reach the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Ninth Circuit held that noncitizens who were turned away before they could enter the U.S. had “arrived in” the United States for purposes of federal immigration law and therefore could apply for asylum.
The court reverses the Ninth Circuit.
Alito calls the question “straightforward.”
“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place . . . before the person enters that place.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-5_86qd.pdf
(Sotomayor is now reading from her dissent from the bench)
Her dissent is joined by Kagan and Jackson; Jackson also wrote a separate dissent.
Justice Thomas has a solo concurring opinion “to address two further problems with the decision below” — the decision to grant classwide injunctive relief, he says, and “the relief that the District Court provided may well have unconstitutionally infringed on the President’s inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country.”
The Sotomayor dissent is 35 pages — almost twice as long as the Alito majority opinion.
Alito still has one more opinion; no word yet on whether it is the last one.
Roberts may have one as well.
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.