Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case TrackerThe Court, in plain English

Argument sitting

November 2026 oral arguments

9 cases across 6 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
Six argument days, November 2 to November 30, 2026. Three of them have more than one case.

2 cases
Before ArgumentsJasmine Younge, Petitioner v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, GeorgiaWhere a defendant has filed an answer without pleading an affirmative defense, may the defendant nonetheless assert that affirmative defense as the basis for a summary judgment motion, without amending or seeking to amend its answer to plead that affirmative defense, and may a defendant do so even if an amendment adding that affirmative defense would be barred by Rule 16(b)(4)?Argument 25-352Before ArgumentsWilliam Maxwell v. Sandra Dinis, Acting Warden1. The question for this Court is whether disputes regarding the calculation of an inmate's earned First Step Act time credits, enabling the inmate to transfer into halfway house or home confinement earlier, similar to parole, are actionable under 28 U.S.C. §2241? 2. The question for this Court is whether, given all the obstruction of the administrative remedy process that took place in this case, under Perttu v. Richards, exhaustion of administrative remedies is interwoven into the underlying claims themselves, creating a fact issue for a jury, and whether the trial court must make that determination in the first instance? 3. WHETHER A CLAIM REGARDING APPLICATION OF TIME CREDITS UNDER THE FIRST STEP ACT OF 2018, 132 STAT. 5195–5208 (CODIFIED IN RELEVANT PART AT 18 U. S. C. §§3631–3635), SEEKING ACCELERATED TRANSFER TO A HALFWAY HOUSE OR HOME CONFINEMENT, CAN BE BROUGHT IN A HABEAS PETITION UNDER 28 U. S. C. §2241?Argument 25-5930

1 case
Before ArgumentsSt. Mary Catholic Parish, Littleton, Colorado, et al., Petitioners v. Lisa Roy, in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, et al.Whether a law lacks general applicability under the Free Exercise Clause only if it permits unfettered discretion or secular exemptions, and does the rule against excluding religious institutions from public benefits apply only to explicit government bans on participation?Argument 25-581

1 case
Before ArgumentsEric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division v. Dexter JohnsonWhether a claim relies on a "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable" when the habeas petitioner could have asserted a claim based on the rule in a prior federal habeas petition?Argument 25-1003

2 cases
Before ArgumentsLeonard W. Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.In private condemnations under the Natural Gas Act, should just compensation be determined by reference to state law?Argument 25-159Before ArgumentsFrancis Nielsen v. Kekai WatanabeWhether the Ninth Circuit here erred in recognizing a Bivens cause of action.Argument 25-417

1 case
Before ArgumentsDepartment of Labor, et al., Petitioners v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC1. Whether Article III of the Constitution precludes the Department of Labor from adjudicating proceedings to collect monetary remedies from employers who have allegedly violated the terms and conditions of employment of H-2A workers and domestic workers in corresponding employment? 2. Whether 8 U. S. C. §1188(g)(2) authorizes the Department of Labor to adjudicate proceedings to collect monetary remedies from employers who have allegedly violated the terms and conditions of employment of H-2A workers and domestic workers in corresponding employment?Argument 25-966

2 cases
Before ArgumentsThomas Crowther, et al., Petitioners v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, et al.Whether Title IX provides employees of federally funded educational institutions a private right of action to sue for sex discrimination in employment.Argument 25-183Before ArgumentsTamer S. Wassily, et al., Petitioners v. Todd Blanche, Attorney GeneralWhether noncitizens who were "granted asylum," but whose asylum was later terminated, are eligible for adjustment to LPR status under Section 1159(b) (as the Fifth Circuit held), or are categorically ineligible (as the Second and Fourth Circuits held)?Argument 25-842