October 3, 2025

Undoubtedly, the most significant Supreme Court news today was that the Court granted certiorari in five cases (why the Court couldn't wait until three days from now for their scheduled order list to announce these grants, of course, remains a mystery). Those cases are listed below.

Docket	Name
24-1046	Wolford v. Lopez
24-1238	Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
24-699	Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (Cuba)
24-983	Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
25-95	Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan

Wolford v. Lopez is a major gun rights case where the petitioners want the Court to invalidate a Hawaii gun control law as unconstitutional. The law in question makes it illegal for someone with a concealed-carry permit to concealed carry a firearm onto someone else's property unless “given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property.” The petition originally presented two questions, of which the Court pointedly decided only to grant cert on the first: 

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, 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? 

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws in applying Bruen's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits?

Since the second question, from what I can tell, is more focused on other Hawaii statutes banning people from carrying guns into certain categories of locations, it looks like the Court will not be deciding whether those statutes are unconstitutional. Instead, the Court will only decide whether the private-property concealed-carry ban is constitutional. Of course, given the Court's well-documented tendency to strike down gun laws for violating the Second Amendment, the petitioners have an excellent chance of success here.

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC is a relatively boring case about whether a specific federal law preempts state laws allowing for civil suits for negligence in the context of selecting a driver of a motor vehicle.

24-699 and 24-983 are both about the same federal law allowing Americans to sue someone who is trafficking in property belonging to the American person that was then seized by the Castro regime in Cuba.

Today, eight petitions where the petitioner was represented by an attorney were docketed.

Docket	Petitioner	Respondent
25-5802	Tommy Phonthalangsy	United States
25-5796	Daniel Matthew Matlock	United States
25-403	Kenneth D. Anderson	Crystal Estrada
25-402	Mamadou Diaw	Ohio
25-401	Alexander Carter	Thomas J. Dart
25-400	PT Medisafe Technologies	United States Patent and Trademark Office
25-399	Ronell Moses, Jr.	United States
25-396	Hernan Lopez	United States

The Court called for a response in a few cases today as well:

25-350, Charles Brooks v. Jeremy James Allen, a case about the Prison Litigation Reform Act and when its exhaustion requirements apply--specifically, after someone is released from prison. The petition claims there is a deep, entrenched circuit split on this issue. Also, this petition was filed by the state of Minnesota's Attorney General's office, which probably made the Court take it more seriously.

25-331, Patrick Wayman Scullark, Jr. v. Iowa, a case about whether the Fourth Amendment allows police to search incident to arrest any bag the arrestee has on them, even if the arrestee can't possibly access it at the time. Interestingly, somehow, the petitioner here managed to get represented by an attorney from Jones Day.

25-179, Officer Phillip Reinink v. Sean Hart, a case where a cop wants the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court's decision denying him that sweet, sweet qualified immunity. Apparently, this case originated as a Section 1983 suit by Sean Hart against Officer Reinink for excessive force. The petition emphasizes that the officer, supposedly, intended not to use excessive force, and tries to portray the excessive force the officer used as a "reasonable" "mistake". The original incident happened in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 2020, and there doesn't seem to be dispute that the officer used more force than he should have. A local news story from the time says Reinink shot Hart with long-range tear gas while at short range, and that Reinink meant to use the other canister--oops!