January 6, 2026

The Court quietly updated its interactive calendar on its homepage today to say that
it "may" announce opinions on Friday, January 9. From what I have seen having watched the Court closely for some time now, this means it definitely will announce opinions in one or more argued cases on that date, despite the use of the word "may" suggesting that it may not do so.

To illustrate the update I'm talking about, look at the screenshot below. This is the box that appears, as of today, when you click on Friday, January 9 on the interactive calendar on supremecourt.gov. The second line ("The court may announce opinions...") was not there until today.

The Court has not yet announced opinions in any argued cases for the current term, even though the term started 3 months ago, and 27 cases have already been argued. So I'm not at all surprised that some decisions are going to be announced soon. (The only opinions of the court that have been announced this term, excluding shadow docket decisions, are three cases that were all decided summarily, without briefing or argument.)

There were no new orders today, but there were multiple new relists yesterday, which distributed some pending petitions for the next conference (which will also happen this Friday). Smith v. Scott, No. 24-1099, remains the most-relisted pending petition, having been relisted for the ninth time yesterday.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 quest...
Read more

November 17, 2025, Part 2: Relist Analysis

As I noted in my post earlier today, No. 24-1159, Jeffrey Clyde Pitts v. Mississippi , is the most-relisted pending cert petition at the Supreme Court right now, having been relisted for the seventh time today. The question presented, according to the petition , is as follows:  "Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the use of a screen at trial that blocks a child witness’s view of the defendant, without any individualized finding by the trial court that the screen is necessary to prevent trauma to the child." In a stark illustration of the extreme contrast between certiorari petitions and briefs in opposition in the same case, the brief in opposition filed by Mississippi reframes the question presented as:  "Whether this Court should review the Mississippi state courts’ rejection of petitioner’s Confrontation Clause challenge to his four-year-old daughter’s testimony that he sexually abused her, when the trial proceedings satisfied confrontation’s essential elements...
Read more

December 8, 2025: Updated Relist Analysis

Image
In my post on Friday I noted that the most-relisted pending petitions at the Supreme Court was a three-way tie: specifically, three petitions had each been relisted seven times. Those petitions are: National Basketball Association v. Michael Salazar , No. 24-994 John Doe v. Kathy Hochul , No. 24-1015 Kyle Smith v. Rochelle Scott , No. 24-1099 Well, today, as expected, the Court issued an order list at 9:30 AM. Also as expected, it consisted mostly of a list of petitions being denied. What I found more surprising was that the Court only denied one of the three petitions mentioned above, and not only that, they did it without so much as a noted dissent, let alone a written opinion dissenting from the denial. Specifically, the Court denied NBA v. Salazar today. Of course, as usual, the Court offered no explanation of why they did so, meaning we don't really know why they turned away this case.  What happened to the other two petitions that had each been relisted seven times? Well, i...
Read more