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

Current term

October Term 2026 (2026–2027)

28 cases15 arguments scheduledOverview
  • Before Arguments15
  • Awaiting Decision6
  • Decided7
  • Dismissed0
7 of 28 tracked cases in October Term 2026 (2026–2027) have a decision on the record.

Term tracker

Every published case, by stage

Cases Before Arguments

15
Before ArgumentsChallenges to prison time creditsWilliam Maxwell, Petitioner v. Sandra Dinis, Acting WardenWilliam Maxwell, a federal prisoner, challenges the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of earned time credits under the First Step Act, which he says could make him eligible for earlier transfer to a halfway house or home confinement. The Court will decide whether he may bring that challenge through a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.Argument 25-5930Before ArgumentsLate legal defensesJasmine Younge, Petitioner v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, GeorgiaThis case concerns whether the Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office may rely on an affirmative defense for the first time in seeking summary judgment after it did not include that defense in its answer to Dr. Jasmine Younge’s lawsuit. The Supreme Court will review the Eleventh Circuit’s rule allowing such a defense to be raised even after the scheduling-order deadline for amending the answer has passed.Argument 25-352Before ArgumentsReligious schools and public fundingSt. 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.Colorado’s universal preschool program funds public and private providers but requires participating schools to agree not to exclude children based on characteristics including sexual orientation and gender identity. Catholic parishes and the Archdiocese of Denver argue that the state may not exclude their preschools while allowing various secular exemptions; the Supreme Court will decide whether Colorado’s policy violates the Free Exercise Clause and rules against religious exclusion from public-benefit programs.Argument 25-581Before ArgumentsNew rules in repeat petitionsEric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Petitioner v. Dexter JohnsonThe Court will decide when a state prisoner may file a second federal habeas petition based on a new constitutional rule that the Supreme Court has made retroactive. Texas argues that Dexter Johnson cannot use that exception because he could have raised the claim in an earlier petition, even though it would not have succeeded then.Argument 25-1003Before ArgumentsSuing over prison medical careFrancis Nielsen, Petitioner v. Kekai WatanabeThe Supreme Court will decide whether Kekai Watanabe, a federal detainee who alleges prison officials failed to provide adequate care for a fractured tailbone and chronic pain after an assault, may seek money damages from those officials. The case concerns whether that claim fits within the limited Bivens remedy previously recognized by the Court or would improperly extend that remedy to a new setting.Argument 25-417Before ArgumentsState rules for land paymentsLeonard W. Hoffmann, et al., Petitioners v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.This case concerns how much a private natural-gas company must pay when it uses federal eminent-domain authority under the Natural Gas Act to take an easement over private land for pipeline infrastructure. The Court will decide whether compensation is set by state law, which may provide more than the constitutional minimum, or only by the Fifth Amendment’s minimum requirement.Argument 25-159Before ArgumentsAgency power to impose finesDepartment of Labor, et al., Petitioners v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLCThis case concerns whether the Department of Labor may use its own administrative process to impose monetary remedies on an H-2A agricultural employer alleged to have violated required working and living conditions for visa and corresponding U.S. workers. The Court will consider both the agency’s statutory authority and whether Article III requires these claims to be decided first by a federal court.Argument 25-966Before ArgumentsThomas Crowther, et al., Petitioners v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, et al.The Court will decide whether Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination by federally funded schools lets employees sue their educational employers for sex discrimination. The case arises from claims by former Georgia Tech women’s basketball coach MaChelle Joseph that the university treated her program less favorably than the men’s program and later terminated her employment.Argument 25-183Before ArgumentsGreen cards after asylum endsTamer S. Wassily, et al., Petitioners v. Todd Blanche, Attorney GeneralThe Court will decide whether a noncitizen whose asylum was later terminated can still seek lawful permanent resident status based on having previously been granted asylum. The case concerns a split among federal appeals courts over the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b).Argument 25-842Before ArgumentsExcessive property forfeituresKenneth J. Jouppi, Petitioner v. AlaskaThe Supreme Court will decide whether Alaska’s forfeiture of Kenneth Jouppi’s $95,000 airplane for transporting a passenger who had a six-pack of beer was an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. The case concerns how courts should measure the seriousness of an offense when deciding whether a forfeiture is proportional to the wrongdoing.Argument 25-246Before ArgumentsAR-15 possession bansCutberto Viramontes, et al., Petitioners v. Cook County, Illinois, et al.This case challenges Cook County, Illinois’s ban on the possession, sale, and transfer of certain semiautomatic firearms, including AR-15-style rifles. The Supreme Court will decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to possess those rifles.Argument 25-238Before ArgumentsSemiautomatic rifle bansEddie Grant, Jr., et al., Petitioners v. Ronnell Higgins, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Transportation, et al.The Supreme Court will consider a challenge to Connecticut’s restrictions on certain semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15-style rifles. The case asks whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess these commonly owned rifles for lawful purposes.Argument 25-566Before ArgumentsInternational Partners for Ethical Care, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Bob Ferguson, Governor of Washington, et al.The case concerns Washington laws that allow youth shelters to use alternative procedures rather than immediately notifying parents when a runaway minor seeks certain gender-affirming care services. The Supreme Court will consider whether the parent plaintiffs have legal standing to challenge those laws in federal court.Argument 25-840Before ArgumentsVoter registration citizenship rulesRepublican National Committee, Petitioner v. Mi Familia Vota, et al.This pending case concerns Arizona laws requiring people who use the state voter-registration form to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship and directing officials to cancel registrations when information confirms that a registrant is not a citizen. The Court will decide whether federal voter-registration law or a prior consent decree blocks those measures, including cancellations made within 90 days of a federal election.Argument 25-1017Before ArgumentsThreats against religious worshipDaniel Grand, Petitioner v. City of University Heights, Ohio, et al.Daniel Grand alleges that University Heights officials’ threats concerning his proposed religious gatherings at his home deterred worship and assembly protected by the First Amendment. The case concerns whether he may pursue that claim even though the city had not made a final land-use decision about the gatherings.Argument 25-965

Cases Awaiting Decision

6
Awaiting DecisionVideo viewing privacyMichael Salazar, Petitioner v. Paramount Global, dba 247SportsMichael Salazar alleges that Paramount Global violated the Video Privacy Protection Act when its 247Sports website used a Facebook tracking tool that transmitted his Facebook ID and video-viewing information after he subscribed to the site’s online newsletter. The Supreme Court will consider whether that newsletter subscription made Salazar a protected “consumer” under the Act.Argued 25-459Awaiting DecisionWhen courts follow sentencing guidanceKendrick Jarrell Beaird, Petitioner v. United StatesKendrick Beaird pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, and the district court increased his sentencing range based on Sentencing Guidelines commentary defining a “large capacity magazine.” The Supreme Court will decide whether courts must still follow the deference rule for Guidelines commentary stated in Stinson v. United States.Argued 25-5343Awaiting DecisionEnvironmental review of waste permitsDepartment of the Air Force, et al., Petitioners v. Prutehi Guahan, fka Prutehi LitekyanThe Court will decide whether the Air Force’s application to Guam to renew a hazardous-waste permit for operations at Andersen Air Force Base can be immediately challenged in court, and whether the Air Force had to complete a broader environmental review before filing the application. The dispute concerns how the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the hazardous-waste permitting system under RCRA apply to the federal government.Argued 25-579Awaiting DecisionRetirement fund performanceWinston R. Anderson, et al., Petitioners v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, et al.This case concerns whether former Intel retirement-plan participants adequately alleged that the plan’s fiduciaries violated ERISA’s duty of prudence by keeping proprietary investment funds that allegedly performed poorly after Intel added hedge-fund and private-equity investments. The Court will decide whether the Ninth Circuit could require plaintiffs in such cases to identify a meaningful comparison benchmark at the pleading stage.Argued 25-498Awaiting DecisionVeterans' benefits court accessFloyd D. Johnson, Petitioner v. United States CongressFloyd D. Johnson, a veteran whose disability payments were reduced while he was incarcerated, challenges the constitutionality of the federal law requiring the reduction. The Supreme Court will decide whether the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act prevents federal district courts from hearing that type of constitutional challenge to an act of Congress affecting veterans’ benefits.Argued 25-735Awaiting DecisionClimate change liabilitySuncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al., Petitioners v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, et al.Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor entities under state law, alleging that their fossil-fuel activities contributed to climate change and harmed local property and residents. The Supreme Court will decide whether it has authority to hear the case and whether federal law bars these state-law claims involving the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions.Argued 25-170

Decided Cases

7
Case remandedFederal court power over arbitrationBurford German Funding LLC v. financialright claims GmbHBurford German Funding LLC and financialright claims GmbH dispute whether a federal court with jurisdiction over a case can pause it and require arbitration. The Supreme Court granted the petition, wiped out the Third Circuit’s judgment (vacated it), and sent the case back to that court (remanded) for another look in light of Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties—a grant-vacate-remand (GVR) order, not a decision on the arbitration question.Remanded 25-1269Case remandedAppealing a longer sentencePedro Jose Silva Ochoa v. United StatesOchoa disputed whether his plea waiver barred an appeal of a sentence above his defense’s proposed guideline range, including when the judge advised him of an appeal right without government objection. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, wiped out the Eleventh Circuit judgment (vacated it), and sent the case back (remanded it) for reconsideration in light of Hunter, without deciding the questions.Remanded 25-7569Case remandedLawsuits over hidden bankruptcy claimsRoofing Designs by JR, L.L.C., dba Roofing Designs v. Royal American Construction, IncorporatedRoofing Designs by JR asked whether a plaintiff who did not fully disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy can be barred from pursuing it based only on a possible motive for leaving it out, without evidence of bad faith. The Supreme Court wiped out the Fifth Circuit’s judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back to that court (remanded it) for another look in light of Keathley; it did not decide the question.Remanded 25-1367Case remandedRace and voting districtsBenancio Garcia, III v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of WashingtonBenancio Garcia III said Washington drew Legislative District 15 based on race in violation of the Constitution, and argued a court-ordered replacement district in another case worsened his injury; the Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal of his claim as no longer a live dispute (moot). The Supreme Court granted Garcia’s petition for review (agreed to hear the case), wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back (remanded) for another look in light of Louisiana v. Callais, without deciding whether the claim is moot.Remanded 25-901Case remandedRace in voting mapsJose A. Trevino v. Steven Hobbs, Secretary of State of WashingtonThe case concerns a Voting Rights Act challenge to Washington’s legislative district 15 and José A. Trevino and other intervenors’ objections to a court-ordered replacement map. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, wiped out the Ninth Circuit’s judgment (vacated it), and sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit for another look (remanded it) in light of Louisiana v. Callais, without deciding the underlying questions.Remanded 25-918Case remandedWhere federal charges are triedLamor Whitehead v. United StatesLamor Whitehead argued that New York was not a proper place to prosecute a federal false-statement charge based on a statement allegedly made in New Jersey, and also challenged how a defense witness invoked the right against self-incrimination, a “sophisticated means” sentencing increase, and the admission of evidence about other acts. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, wiped out the Second Circuit’s judgment (vacated it), and sent the case back to that court (remanded it) to reconsider in light of Abouammo, without deciding Whitehead’s underlying arguments.Remanded 25-7462Case remandedLimits on appeal waiversJulian Snipe v. United StatesSnipe challenged the Second Circuit’s appeal-waiver ruling, which barred claims about convictions and sentences for crimes he says he did not admit. The Court agreed to hear the case, wiped out the judgment (vacated it), and sent it back (remanded it) for another look in light of Hunter; it did not decide the claims.Remanded 25-7532