SCOTUS Begins Once More

The Supreme Court has a "long conference" at the end of the term to dispose of a bunch of pending cases left over from the summer. They welcomed the beginning of the new 2026 term with a long Order List,  disposing of most of them.

(The start of the term changed over time.) 

Some conservatives and Kagan, including Alito (who didn't take part in the first argument of the term), didn't take part in various decisions. Kagan and Jackson are the only justices who consistently (referencing the voluntary ethics rules) say why. 

If you skim the Order List, you will notice some odds and ends. Kavanaugh, without saying why, would have granted cert. (argument) in one case. The case involves class actions. You have to go to the docket page since the Order List is just a screenshot without links, as would be the case on a more useful website.

The Supreme Court, since the 1990s, has a policy of blocking in forma pauperis appeals when it believes a person has overused the privilege. Jackson eventually decided not to go along when the person is incarcerated, and it was a noncriminal appeal. 

Sotomayor issued a statement. She was concerned about a judge whose criminal sanction of a juror led other jurors to feel they could not be totally open about their concerns. She explained it was procedurally not a good challenge. But, as she has done before (often involving criminal issues), she emphasized that it is a serious issue. 

Justice Alito is promoting a book. It is a collection of essays. The book's title promotes him as a supporter of originalism. His bona fides there are mixed, but the term is plastic enough that it likely works.

I commented on multiple posts on the website at the link. The conservative-leaning law professor is a tad too enthusiastic. One stupid bit involves him asserting that same-sex marriage cases had many concrete effects, while Roe v. Wade was more about women's position in society. 

As one person noted, there is nothing much more "concrete" than pregnancy. Likewise, it is not like same-sex marriage cases don't have ideological implications. Alito, for instance, has joined Thomas in alleging the cases somehow threaten the liberty of religious believers who disagree with the practice.

The Supreme Court and the courts should be something people keep in mind for the November elections. They, like Congress, are too pro-Trump.