Posted on 06/11/2026 6:46:01 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 23 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 5, Alito 2, Sotomayor 5, Kagan 3, Gorsuch 5, Kavanaugh 4, and Jackson 5. There have been 9 per curiam.
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.
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!
For what its worth, the fact that Alito has only released 2 opinions so far this term, tells me that he has been assigned one or two of the bigger and more important cases. (Let us pray) Of course, Kagan has only written 3 so there is that as well.
SCOTUS ping!
We have the first decision of the morning.
It is Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction.
It is by Jackson and it is unanimous.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-6_d1o2.pdf
Issue Area
Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.
Held: To determine whether an omission of a claim in the bankruptcy
context was inadvertent or mistaken for purposes of judicial estoppel,
courts should look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
omission; the Fifth Circuit erred by artificially narrowing its inquiry
to whether the debtor had knowledge of the underlying facts or a potential motive to conceal the claim.
Kinda complex. Can you decode?
Next up!
FS Credit v. Saba.It is by Justice Barrett, and the vote is 6-3.
The question in this case was whether private litigants (that is, someone other than the government) can sue investment companies under a provision of the Investment Company Act of 1940 that gives courts the power to invalidate contracts that violate the law. More broadly, the court in recent years has generally not been sympathetic to the idea of recognizing a private right to sue when federal law does not explicitly authorize it. The lower court in this case allowed the lawsuit to go forward.
The court holds that the provision at issue in this case does not create an implied right to sue to invalidate a contract that allegedly violates the Investment Company Act.
Kagan dissents. Jackson dissents, joined by Sotomayor and in part by Kagan.
My read is how can you lie in bankruptcy court about your potential assets?
Next is Abouammo v. US
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/25
It is by Kagan, and it is unanimous.
The question before the court in this case is where an alleged violation of a federal law that makes it a crime to knowingly falsify a document with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation should be tried.
The court holds today that the trial should be held in the district where the falsification occurred; it cannot be held where the investigation was located if that was a different district.
Thomas Keathley filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas in December 2019. In August 2021, while his bankruptcy case was ongoing, Keathley was in a motor vehicle collision with David Fowler, a truck driver employed by Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. (BAC). Keathley hired a personal injury attorney the next day and subsequently filed a personal injury lawsuit against BAC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in December 2021, alleging negligence and vicarious liability.
Keathley, however, failed to disclose this new personal injury lawsuit as a potential asset to the bankruptcy court. He submitted multiple amended bankruptcy plans in March 2022 and June 2022, none of which mentioned the pending lawsuit. The bankruptcy court confirmed Keathley’s modified plan in July 2022, unaware of the personal injury claim. Keathley only amended his bankruptcy schedule to include the lawsuit after BAC moved to dismiss the personal injury case.
BAC moved for summary judgment in the personal injury suit, arguing that the doctrine of judicial estoppel barred Keathley’s claim because he failed to disclose it during his bankruptcy proceeding. The district court granted BAC’s motion, dismissing the lawsuit, and subsequently denied Keathley’s motion for reconsideration. Keathley then appealed both of those decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s decisions.
SCOTUS ruled the Fifth Circuit’s rule is also overly broad because it
holds that an omission falls outside the exception any time a debtor
knows certain facts or could potentially benefit from nondisclosure, circumstances that will almost always be true, as the Fifth Circuit recognized.
That was the last opinion of the day.
Dang it!!!!
Why do they do this to us????
All these important cases pending and they are dragging the releases out to the very end of the term.
Generally means the leftists on the bench are dragging their feet because they are unhappy with the outcome
The marshal gaveled the court out and announced next Thursday as the next day that the justices would be on the bench. So I’m assuming more opinions will be released then. Of course they could also announce another date come the first of the week.
I believe draft opinions are due on June 1st and dissents by June 15. The leftist justices sometime drag their feet on writing their dissents in order to slow down the release of opinions on cases in which they disagree.
I don’t quite understand why they do it this way. Why not just have a day or even a week long release session? Seems kind of goofy to release a couple this week, a couple more next week...
The leftist justices sometime drag their feet on writing their dissents “
Yep that is exactly what they did with the race based districts to make it impossible enact before the mid-terms. Obvious election tampering. The rat judges are not judges they are political weapons.
“I don’t quite understand why they do it this way. Why not just have a day or even a week long release session? Seems kind of goofy to release a couple this week, a couple more next week...”
They release Opinions as soon as the majority opinion and dissents are completed. Some take longer than others. Appellants deserve to have the decision on their cases as soon as possible after a decision is written.
In close cases, there tends to be detailed haggling by the Justices over revisions to their opinions. One revision can trigger others, with each Justice having to calibrate their demands and concessions against the risk of losing support for an opinion and perhaps losing or even gaining a majority.
In looking at the decisions today, I noticed that two were 9-0 and one 6-3. The two 9-0 cases were by the lovely ladies.
I decided to look at the numbers. The SCOTUS Opinions list show 48 case, not the 41 noted above.
What surprised me was in not what I was looking for. The large number of case where the court was in or near unanimity.
26 Unanimous Decisions
9 8-1 Decisions (one 8-0 as Alito recused on a case)
3 7-2 Decisions
6 6-3 Decisions
3 5-4 Decisions
I suspect the final group will be a bit more contentious, but I would not expected this Court to be in such agreement.
Kagan, Sotomayer and Jackson had 14 of the 9-0 decisions which was the basis of my hypothesis that they were given the easy cases to write.
Only Sotomayer had one case that was not a 9-0 decision.
Chief Roberts has written 3 opinions, Thomas 5, Alito 2, Sotomayor 5, Kagan 3, Gorsuch 5, Kavanaugh 4, and Jackson 5. There have been 9 per curiam.
There list is missing Amy Barrett, she has 5 case including one today. It also has the wrong nomber for Gorsch and the per curiams.
Updated numbers
Chief Roberts 3
S. Alito 2
A. Barrett 5
N. Gorsuch 5
K. Jackson 6
E. Kagan 4
B. Kavanaugh 2
S. Sotomayor 5
C. Thomas 5
Per curiam 11
48
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.