SCOTUS Back

Welcome Back (not really) SCOTUS. 

The Order List to dispose of a bunch of petitions rejected by the Long Conference at the end of the summer came first, with eight of nine (not Jackson) recusing from something & only Kagan saying why (why Sonia?).

Fix the Court tells me on BlueSky that this is Sotomayor's practice. The only time she did explain, she did so along with one or two other liberals. 

I don't recall a solo case since Kagan/Jackson started citing the Code of Conduct, where Sotomayor didn't say why, though clearly might have missed it. 

Since I have made it an issue to single out conservatives here for criticism, fair is fair. Bad justice! To really go into the weeds, she didn't even completely stay away. She granted a request for a delay. (Checked the docket page.) 

Fix the Court summarizes:

OT25 just started & we've already had some recusals

— All justices but Jackson have recused

— Kagan is the only one to explain hers

— Alito leads with 4 (of 11 total), all due to his/Martha Ann's stocks

— 5 due to prior judge/SG work

— 2 due to a justice being sued

After a lower court judge recused in a big Trump case (it didn't help the Administration, so far that a Trump appointee took over), Fix the Court compared how Thomas did things.

The Supreme Court then formally announced the opening of the new term. You can now hear live audio of the oral arguments. Anything else, including opinion announcements, had not been included. 

For the first time, they did not skip over the motions portion, so we were able to hear bar admissions. I appreciate this. I don't know how much they will continue to do it. I would be more surprised if they included opinion announcements. We shall see. 

The opening material is still not permanently on the website. You can only access the oral argument audio files. I did not see the audio button on the website until after the argument had been going on for some time. So, you had to be listening on C-SPAN. 

Of course, we still do not have video, as is present in many lower and foreign courts. Justices can be seen on news programs and late-night shows promoting their books. So, that's okay, right? 

The first oral argument was a law school hypothetical type of case that had cross-ideological implications. Don't worry. The Roberts Court will better show itself tomorrow. They need to be reformed now.

ETA: An "order in a pending case" involving Google was separately dropped. Here's the whole thing:

(ORDER LIST: 607 U.S.)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2025

ORDER IN PENDING CASE

25A354 GOOGLE LLC, ET AL. V. EPIC GAMES, INC.

The application for partial stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied.

==

Sometimes, instead of the usual "in a short order" language, you can simply quote it. The order does not provide a link to the docket page. That would be nice.

Also: On Wednesday, another order dropped on a pending case involving Alabama requesting a stay in a capital case. The stay request was denied, but there was a bit more discussion than usual.