The October sitting is complete.
Latest verified update: David A. Robinson submitted an amicus brief supporting respondents in the consolidated Viramontes / Grant cases on October 26.
Latest entries
Viramontes v. Cook County / Grant v. Higgins
Nos. 25-238 and 25-566 · David A. Robinson argues that the Second Amendment protects arms necessary for individual self-defense but does not protect civilian possession of semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15. He contends that the militia premise is obsolete, compares firearm-capacity limits to speed limits, and asks the Court to define the amendment’s modern boundary rather than await a constitutional amendment. These are the amicus’s arguments, not findings by the Court. The Court dockets list the brief as submitted.
Nielsen v. Watanabe
No. 25-417 · Nielsen argues that Watanabe’s claim presents a new Bivens context because Watanabe survived, his injuries were not life-threatening, and administrative and injunctive remedies were available. He points to the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program and federal statutes as reasons not to imply a damages action and, alternatively, asks the Court to overrule Bivens, Davis, and Carlson. These are the petitioner’s arguments, not findings by the Court.
Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.
No. 26-426 · The government argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction over challenges to third-country removals; that 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) barred classwide declaratory relief and universal APA vacatur; and that the guidance is lawful because the governing provisions prescribe no specific procedures and the guidance supplies either diplomatic assurances or notice and prompt fear review. These are the government’s arguments, not findings by the Court.
Grand v. City of University Heights
No. 25-965 · University Heights and the other respondents ask the Court to dismiss the case as moot or affirm. They argue that Grand’s sale of his home and move out of the city eliminated any prospect of enforcement, that the city never applied its ordinance to his proposed use, and that the Sixth Circuit correctly treated his as-applied land-use claims as unripe under Williamson County’s finality requirement. They also argue that the requirement does not apply to facial challenges and is modest when it does apply. These are respondents’ arguments, not findings by the Court.
Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy
No. 26A512 · The Court stayed the District of New Hampshire’s October 2 and October 5 preliminary-injunction orders pending First Circuit proceedings and a timely certiorari petition. The Court relied on its principle that lower federal courts ordinarily should not alter election rules on the eve of an election. Justice Jackson dissented, reasoning that the district court’s targeted order addressed allegedly misleading public guidance rather than changing New Hampshire law. The link is the Court’s revised October 23 PDF.
Opinion PDF · 3 pagesTrump v. Kingdom
No. 26A416 · The Court denied the government’s application to stay a district-court injunction against the Bureau of Prisons’ 2026 policy governing care for inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The one-page order states no reasons. Justices Thomas and Alito would have granted the application.
Viramontes v. Cook County / Grant v. Higgins
Nos. 25-238 and 25-566 · Connecticut and Cook County respondents filed merits briefs defending restrictions on AR-15-platform rifles. Connecticut argues that its law fits the historical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weapons and disputes a common-use-only test. Cook County argues that AR-15-platform rifles are offensive weapons of war rather than arms customarily used for self-defense and that its ordinance responds to technological change and public-safety risks. These are party filings, not Court decisions.
Reaves v. Florida
No. 26-5865 (26A524) · The Court denied William Reaves’s application for a stay of execution, which Justice Thomas had referred to the Court, and denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. The one-page order states no reasons and records no separate votes.
Association for Education Fairness; Department of Justice v. McNutt
The Court granted review in Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education, No. 26-12, limited to whether a plaintiff challenging a facially neutral admissions policy as racially discriminatory must establish an aggregate disparate impact on the targeted group relative to its share of the applicant pool. It also granted review in Department of Justice v. McNutt, No. 26-204, concerning the constitutionality of the federal prohibition on producing distilled spirits in specified places, including a dwelling house or connected premises. No argument dates have been assigned.
O’Donnell v. City of Chicago
No. 25-1098 · The Court denied certiorari. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Gorsuch, expressed serious concerns about Chicago’s seizure and disposition of vehicles to collect parking-ticket debt without compensation or return of surplus value. She concluded that the police-power exception to the Takings Clause requires further lower-court development and that the facial challenge made this case an unsuitable vehicle.
Statement PDF · 5 pagesSummary disposition and pending matters
The Court granted, vacated, and remanded Burford German Funding v. Financialright Claims for further consideration in light of Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties. It denied the Golden injunction application and the Evans stay application; affirmed BMG Rights Management v. Vetter because the Court lacked a quorum; invited the Solicitor General to file a brief in Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement; and denied Hanaway v. Sanderson, with Justice Alito noting that he would grant review. The remaining listed certiorari petitions were denied as stated in the controlling order list.
Order-list PDF · 10 pagesFCC v. Brown
No. 26A476; related application No. 26A477 · In a per curiam opinion, the Court stayed the Fourth Circuit’s October 7 mandamus order pending the filing and disposition of a certiorari petition. The Court concluded that the FCC has discretion over the procedure and schedule for deciding the pending administrative application and that the statute imposes no specific deadline. It denied the related committee application as moot. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would have denied both applications.
Opinion PDF · 5 pagesSalazar v. Paramount Global
No. 25-459 · The Court heard argument and posted a 93-numbered-page transcript. Salazar argued that the Video Privacy Protection Act covers subscribers to any goods or services from a video tape service provider. Paramount argued that the statutory context limits “goods or services” to audiovisual offerings. The Justices also questioned the parties about limiting principles, the scope of a video tape service provider, personally identifiable information, and standing. The transcript records argument, not a decision.
Wagner v. United States
No. 26A446 · The Court denied the application for a stay presented to Justice Kavanaugh and referred by him to the Court. The one-page order states no reasons.
Order PDF · 1 pageBeaird v. United States
No. 25-5343 · The Court heard argument and posted a 125-page transcript. Beaird argued that courts should not defer to Sentencing Guidelines commentary. The United States supported vacatur and argued that Stinson should operate through Kisor. Court-appointed amicus Anthony J. Dick defended deference to the Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of its advisory guidance. The transcript records argument, not a decision.
Transcript PDF · 125 numbered pagesU.S. DOGE Service; Blanche; Berry
The Court granted review in U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 25-1103, concerning mandamus, separation of powers, and discovery into a presidential advisory body before deciding whether FOIA applies; Blanche v. Ozurumba, No. 25-1343, concerning whether material support must advance a terrorist organization’s actual commission of terrorism; and Berry v. United States, No. 25-7026, concerning a certificate of appealability when another circuit supports the applicant’s position but binding circuit precedent rejects it. No argument dates are assigned in the updated granted list.
Herrera-Salazar v. United States
No. 25-6989 · The Court denied certiorari. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Gorsuch, wrote that Herrera-Salazar’s second conviction for being found in the United States after the Government had prohibited him from leaving raised serious statutory and Double Jeopardy concerns. She concurred in the denial because he had been removed and she hoped the facts were anomalous.
Statement PDF · 3 pagesFour summary dispositions and pending matters
The Court granted, vacated, and remanded Roofing Designs by JR v. Royal American Construction in light of Keathley; Silva Ochoa v. United States and Hobson v. United States in light of Hunter; and Monsanto v. Dennis in light of Monsanto v. Durnell. The list also denies two Gordon stay requests, resolves filing and sealing motions, grants divided-argument motions in pending merits cases, and denies certiorari in the listed petitions.
Order-list PDF · 14 pagesSalazar v. Paramount Global
No. 25-459 · The October 14 day call schedules one hour of argument. Joshua I. Hammack will argue for petitioner; Paul D. Clement will argue for respondent.
Day-call PDF · 1 pageNational Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown
No. 26A477 · The NRCC and NRSC argue that the Fourth Circuit failed to account for the equitable balance and asserted committee harms underlying the Court’s earlier stay; that respondents lack a clear and indisputable right to expedited agency review; that mandamus does not aid the court of appeals’ jurisdiction because the dispute will remain reviewable after the election; and that the FCC’s interpretation is longstanding rather than new. They ask the Court to grant the pending stay applications. This is an applicants’ filing, not a Court ruling.
Reply PDF · 12 pagesFCC v. Brown
No. 26A476 · The FCC argues that the Fourth Circuit’s mandamus order conflicts with the Court’s earlier stay and improperly reduces agency review to a formality; that respondents have not shown a clear and indisputable right to compel action after only a few months while related comments remain pending; and that election stability, agency autonomy, and the asserted harms to the FCC and party committees favor a stay. The FCC asks the Court to stay the Fourth Circuit’s order pending the filing and disposition of a certiorari petition. This is an applicant’s filing, not a Court ruling.
Reply PDF · 11 pagesFCC v. Brown
No. 26A476; response also captioned No. 26A477 · Respondents oppose both stay applications. They argue that the Fourth Circuit’s mandamus order is consistent with the Court’s earlier stay because it requires the FCC to decide the pending application for review; that the dispute is an unsuitable certiorari vehicle; that neither the FCC nor the party committees face irreparable harm from an order requiring an agency decision; and that the equities weigh against a stay. They ask the Court to deny the applications, terminate the administrative stay, and restore the Fourth Circuit’s order. This is a party filing, not a Court ruling.
Response PDF · 79 pagesBeaird v. United States
No. 25-5343 · The October 13 day call allots 20 minutes to Kevin Joel Page for petitioner, 20 minutes to Eric J. Feigin for the United States supporting vacatur, and 20 minutes to Anthony J. Dick as Court-appointed amicus.
Day-call PDF · 1 pageFCC v. Brown
No. 26A476 · Chief Justice Roberts stayed the Fourth Circuit’s October 7 judgment pending further order of the Chief Justice or the Court. The order requires a response to the application by October 10 at 5 p.m. EDT. It does not decide the application on the merits.
Order PDF · 1 pageIn re Jamaal Howard
No. 26-5773 (26A470) · The Court denied the application for a stay of execution referred by Justice Alito and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The one-page order states no reasons.
Order PDF · 1 pageHoward v. Texas
No. 26-5759 (26A459) · The Court denied the application for a stay of execution referred by Justice Alito and the petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Jackson would have granted the stay application.
Order PDF · 1 pageIn re Jamaal Howard
No. 26-5754 (26A456) · The Court denied the application for a stay of execution referred by Justice Alito and the petition for a writ of mandamus. The one-page order states no reasons.
Order PDF · 1 pageDepartment of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan
No. 25-579 · The Court heard argument October 7 and posted an 88-page transcript. Petitioners argued that filing a RCRA permit-renewal application is neither final agency action nor displaced from RCRA’s staged environmental-review process by NEPA. Respondent argued that the Air Force had completed its decision to continue open detonation, that the application produced legal consequences, and that RCRA does not displace NEPA. The transcript records argument, not a decision.
Transcript PDF · 88 numbered pagesAnderson v. Intel
No. 25-498 · The Court heard argument October 6 and posted a 70-page transcript. Petitioners argued that ERISA prudence allegations should be assessed under Rule 8 in their full context. Respondents argued that comparisons between materially different investment funds do not plausibly establish imprudence. The United States supported respondents, addressing when fund-underperformance comparisons require similar investment objectives. The transcript records argument, not a decision.
Transcript PDF · 70 numbered pagesDepartment of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan
No. 25-579 · The October 7 day call schedules one hour of argument. Sopan Joshi will argue for petitioners; Caroline A. Flynn will argue for respondent. The case concerns review of a federal RCRA permit-renewal application and the timing of NEPA review.
Day-call PDF · 1 pageOctober Term 2026 cases for argument
The Court labels its October 1 granted-and-noted list “Corrected—10/6/26.” It still reports 30 cases and 29 arguments, including the Rule 46 dismissal of Genalo v. Black. Excluding that dismissal leaves 29 cases and 28 arguments. The correction label does not identify an additional grant or denial.
Corrected granted-list PDF · 4 pagesAnderson v. Intel
No. 25-498 · The Court’s October 6 day call allots one hour: Matthew W. H. Wessler receives 30 minutes for petitioners; Charles L. McCloud receives 20 minutes for respondents; and Aimee Brown receives 10 minutes for the United States as amicus supporting respondents.
Day-call PDF · 1 pageMulkey v. Alabama
No. 25-7499 · Justice Sotomayor concurred in the denial of certiorari because plain-error review limited the Court’s review. Her statement describes a potential juror’s arrest before the jury pool and its possible effect on juror candor and impartiality. This is the statement attached to the October 5 order list, now separately available as a Court PDF; it is not an additional denial or a merits opinion.
Statement PDF · 2 pagesSeven summary dispositions
The Court granted, vacated, and remanded Garcia v. Hobbs and Trevino v. Hobbs in light of Louisiana v. Callais; Whitehead v. United States in light of Abouammo v. United States; Snipe, Hickman, and Obyeis in light of Hunter v. United States; and Mullin v. National TPS Alliance in light of Mullin v. Doe. The list also denies three stay applications, requests the Solicitor General’s views in seven cases, and includes Justice Sotomayor’s statement respecting the denial of certiorari in Mulkey v. Alabama.
Order-list PDF · 42 pagesThe Court returns for argument
October Term 2026 runs from October 5, 2026, through October 3, 2027. The Court’s current-term opinion table opens with no entries. Four arguments are scheduled for October 5–7, beginning with Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County and Johnson v. United States Congress.
Arguments on October 5, 2026
The Court’s day call sets Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, No. 25-170, as the first argument and Johnson v. United States Congress, No. 25-735, as the second. Each case is allotted one hour. In Suncor, petitioners receive 20 minutes, the United States receives 10 minutes as amicus supporting petitioners, and respondents receive 30 minutes.
Day-call PDF · 1 pageChatrie v. United States
No. 25-112 · The Court’s preliminary print assigns the opinion the citation 609 U.S. 605. The judgment and opinion are unchanged.
Preliminary-print PDF · 69 pagesAFP Foundation v. Albence
No. 26A349 · The Court denied the application for a writ of injunction presented to Justice Alito and referred by him to the Court. The one-page order states no reasons.
Order PDF · 1 pageOctober Term 2026 cases for argument
The Court’s October 1 list now includes the grants in Missionaries of St. John v. Frederic, Marschner v. Marschner, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, and Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. It reports 30 cases corresponding to 29 arguments, with one case—Genalo v. Black—disposed of without argument by a Rule 46 dismissal.
Granted-and-noted list PDF · 4 pagesSession beginning October 5, 2026
The Court posted its three-page hearing list for the October sitting. It identifies counsel for Suncor Energy v. Boulder County and Johnson v. United States Congress on October 5; Anderson v. Intel on October 6; Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan on October 7; Beaird v. United States on October 13; and Salazar v. Paramount Global on October 14. Each case is allotted one hour.
Hearing list PDF · 3 pagesMissionaries of St. John, Inc. v. Frederic
No. 25-1131 · The Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
Order PDF · 1 pageMarschner v. Marschner
No. 25-1349 · The Court granted Roxane M. Marschner’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
Order PDF · 1 pageRhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha
No. 26-104 · The Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Acting Director Rhoney.
Order PDF · 1 pageBeaird v. United States
No. 25-5343 · The Court granted the Solicitor General’s motion for divided argument.
Order PDF · 1 pagePike v. Tennessee
No. 26-5696 (26A414) · The Court denied Christa G. Pike’s application for a stay of execution and petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Kavanaugh referred the stay application to the Court.
Order PDF · 1 pageStrulovitch v. Bain
No. 26A382 · Justice Sotomayor denied the application for a stay without prejudice to the applicants seeking relief again, if necessary, after state-court remedies are exhausted.
Order PDF · 1 pageDepartment of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.
No. 26-426 (26A406) · The Court stayed the District of Massachusetts’s February 25 order and judgment, treated the stay application as a petition for certiorari, and granted review. The parties must brief jurisdiction, the District Court’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), and the legality of the Government’s third-country-removal guidance. The Clerk must set briefing for argument in the December 2026 session. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would have denied the stay.
Order PDF · 1 pageBeasley v. Comerford
No. 26-5697 (26A415) · The Court denied Curtis W. Beasley’s application for a stay of execution and petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Thomas referred the stay application to the Court.
Order PDF · 1 pageBeasley v. Florida
No. 26-5678 (26A405) · The Court denied Curtis W. Beasley’s application for a stay of execution and petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Thomas referred the stay application to the Court.
Order PDF · 1 pagePeople Not Politicians v. Onder
No. 26A388 · In a per curiam opinion, the Court stayed the Eighth Circuit’s September 21 mandate and September 22 order and the District Court’s September 21 and 22 injunctions. The Court left its September 10 stay in effect and directed that lower courts not prohibit Missouri’s use of the 2022 congressional map or require use of the 2025 map in the 2026 election. It relied on the ongoing election, ballots already printed and mailed, and the Purcell principle against late federal-court changes to state election rules.
Opinion PDF · 5 pagesDepartment of Homeland Security v. League of Women Voters
No. 26A308 · In a per curiam opinion, the Court stayed the District Court’s order vacating the modified Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program while the Government’s appeal proceeds. The Court concluded that the plaintiff organizations likely have standing, but that the organizations’ statutory and Administrative Procedure Act claims likely lack merit because 8 U.S.C. § 1373 likely authorizes the information sharing at issue. Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented.
Opinion PDF · 19 pagesRamey v. Texas
No. 26-5637 (26A380) · The Court denied Ker’Sean O. Ramey’s application for a stay of execution of his death sentence and his petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Alito referred the stay application to the Court.
Order PDF · 1 pageLee v. Lovelace
No. 26-5541 (26A337) · The Court denied Jeffery Lee’s application for a stay of execution of his death sentence and his petition for a writ of certiorari.
Order PDF · 1 pageNorman v. Texas
No. 26-5558 (26A353) · The Court denied LeJames Norman’s application for a stay of execution and petition for a writ of certiorari. It granted his motion to file the petition under seal with redacted copies for the public record.
Order PDF · 1 pageGenalo v. Black
No. 25-886 · Case dismissed under Rule 46 on September 11 and removed from the October 13 argument calendar. The Court’s revised calendar leaves Beaird v. United States as the only argument on October 13 and renumbers Salazar v. Paramount Global as the second argument of the sitting on October 14.
Conahan v. Florida
No. 26-5476 (26A306) · Stay of execution and petition for certiorari denied.
Order PDFNational Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown
No. 26A274 · Per curiam · Justice Jackson dissenting.
Opinion PDF · 5 pagesNational Park Service v. National Trust
No. 26A203 · Per curiam · Separate opinions by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.
Opinion PDF · 14 pagesEnbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel
May the 30-day deadline in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) be equitably tolled?
The statute’s text, structure, and context are inconsistent with equitable tolling. Enbridge’s removal was untimely.
- Decision
- 9–0 Unanimous
- Opinion by
- Sotomayor For the Court
- Argued
- Feb 24 2026
- Decided
- Apr 22 2026
- Removal
- 887 days after service
- Reported
- 608 U.S. 67 18 pages