January 21, 2026: Updated Relist Analysis

In the Court's order list yesterday, it denied a large number of petitions, as expected. But it did not deny any of the highly-relisted ones I had been keeping an eye on, in particular, Smith v. Scott, No. 24-1099, Klein v. Martin, No. 25-51, and Reed v. Goertz, No. 24-1268. Instead, all of these petitions were relisted yet again. As a result, Smith v. Scott remains the most-relisted petition that the Court still hasn't disposed of, with a total of 11 relists. As was the case in my previous post, second place remains a tie between Klein and Reed, both of which were relisted for the tenth time yesterday.

However, the Court did deny numerous petitions it had relisted multiple times, almost all of which were Second Amendment challenges to the federal statute criminalizing firearm possession by convicted felons, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). For example, after six relists, the Court denied Willis v. United States, No. 25-5009. The question presented there was: "Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to Mr. Willis, in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024)." Many of the other petitions denied in yesterday's order list presented extremely similar (and in some cases identical) questions about this statute.

The most-relisted petition to be denied yesterday, however, was not about 922(g)(1) at all. Instead, it was Tuopeh v. South Dakota, No. 25-5253, which was denied after being relisted seven times. The questions presented here were: "1. Whether a defendant’s compulsory process rights remain unexhausted when a primary defense witness refuses to be transported to court from his prison cell to testify when three more days of trial existed to procure his presence in court. 2. Whether a defendant’s right to present a complete defense is violated when the lower courts totally preclude evidence challenging the strength of the state’s investigation of the case and resulting charging decisions. 3. Whether appellate analysis of improper vouching statements (“my job is justice”) extends beyond prosecutor statements concerning state witnesses only, and includes unsworn prosecutor opinions as to the defendant’s guilt erroneously regarded only as a response. 4. Whether due process is violated on appeal when an appellate court regards the central issue for the jury as the defendant’s guilt or innocence versus whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty." 

In this case, Justice Jackson noted her dissent, which is unusual in and of itself. In fact, it seems to be the first noted dissent from denial of certiorari in a non-capital case in the current term. (This does not count Trump v. Slaughter, which was originally a stay application which the Court then granted, but also treated as a petition for certiorari for judgment and then granted as a petition too (confused yet?). The three liberal justices dissented from this decision.)