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.

ETA: I will add updates on Jamaal Howard's execution, scheduled for 10/7 in Texas.

He murdered a woman in 2000 during an attempted robbery. Twenty-five years is too long to wait, as Justice Breyer argued, to execute him.

His lawyers are using the recent botched execution to argue Texas -- which has a much better record -- cannot be trusted. Good luck with that. 

Also, a final appeal tries to obtain another bite of the apple to claim he is too intellectually disabled to be executed. Jackson dissented without opinion. 

Meanwhile, Christa Pike is conscious after surviving an execution attempt and is, let's say, out of sorts. 

Two More Executions (Well, One)

I continue to agree with Justice Breyer (and Ginsburg and Stevens) that there are constitutional problems with executing people decades after the trial. 

No justice has agreed with them since. Thus, two more people were executed after thirty years, without any red flags being raised. 

Curtis Wilkie Beasley, 77, is scheduled for execution on Sept. 29 for the 1995 murder of a Polk County woman who was bludgeoned with a hammer in her home.

In 1998, a jury voted 10-2 to recommend Beasley die for the death of 62-year-old Carolyn Monfort of Dundee after he had been found guilty on charges of first-degree murder, robbery, and grand theft in February of that year.

It is becoming a standard practice. Florida executes old men for horrible crimes occurring decades ago. 

Other problems may exist (e.g., non-unanimous jury recommendation). The final appeals raise multiple claims. The time lag, however, stands out most. 

A major argument is that he is a decrepit old man who is not fit to be executed. I consider these types of executions a form of de facto euthanasia. 

Christa Pike, aged 50, is scheduled to be executed in Tennessee, USA, on September 30, 2026. She was convicted in 1996 of a 1995 murder committed when she was 18, barely out of a childhood in which she endured rape, sexual and physical violence, abuse, and neglect. The state failed to protect her as a child despite having knowledge of what she was facing. Her court-appointed lawyers then failed her at her trial, presenting little of the mitigating evidence of this abuse or its psychological consequences.

Tennessee last executed a woman in 1819. An execution of a woman is always atypical. The crime here was horrible.

Pike had accused Colleen of insulting her and trying to steal her boyfriend. Two other residents at the camp later testified that Pike had bragged about the murder before and after, and showed them a piece of Colleen's skull.

She did not act alone in the "torturing and murdering" of the teen. A co-defendant reportedly was the one truly into the Satanic rituals practiced during the crime. Her defense was also suspect, including failure to provide adequate testimony about her problems. 

A very troubled eighteen-year-old committed a heinous crime. She has been in prison for thirty years. Is that not enough punishment? Not according to Tennessee. She failed the death penalty lottery.

A coalition against sexual abuse submitted a striking amicus brief arguing that her past sexual trauma would lead to PTSD while she was being executed. She would effectively feel like she was being raped. 

The justices rejected all the final appeals without comment. I don't like that as a general rule. 

It is a tad worse here. Something worse happened the next day. The court of appeals (2-1) temporarily stayed the execution. The Supreme Court overturned the stay, with Sotomayor dissenting for the liberals.

Two appellate courts splitting on the issue shows room for debate. The Supreme Court's intervention allowed someone to die. The orders yesterday kept the status quo, though one allegation was glaring enough to warrant a response. 

I understand the concern that the court of appeals wrongly stopped things at the last minute. It has been thirty years, and now there is more delay.

I wasn't sure if it made the right call. New evidence might be present, but was it really enough? There was also a procedural debate over the claim. 

Once the court of appeals stayed the execution, the presumption favors the status quo. Lifting the stay would result in someone's death. (Or so it seemed.) The majority should have explained why reversal was warranted. 

The execution was also botched. Media witnesses explained, in brutal detail, how things went down. She was alive over an hour after the execution drugs were administered. I wonder about executions in other states. Were there more problems than apparent? 

They were left in the dark about what exactly happened, including whether she was still alive. 

"No prison officials were outside to tell the media what was happening as the first responders arrived. No time of death has been publicly provided."

A curtain was repeatedly drawn to hide what was going on in the execution chamber. Later, a court reported that the government provided medical attention. Anyway, I guess her concerns about the use of lethal injection weren't totally off base. 

It was not the first botched execution this year. The governor announced that officials will suspend the other execution planned this year while they investigate. 

Some people have denounced capital punishment as "barbarism" tonight. Often, it goes down without looking as horrible. But maybe that is how barbarism works. It seems okay, then they rub in how bad it is. 

==

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court prepared for the new term. A "long conference" examined a bunch of pending appeals, mostly to dispose of them.

Alito recused himself in a major climate dispute. There was some back-and-forth involved. 

Alito (more) and Roberts are the only active justices with individual stocks, which means Alito has to recuse more often. Maybe there is a better way?

Shadow Docket Time

SCOTUS is busy doing many things. 

But this is worthy of a stand-alone entry. Chris Geidner has the details. He also summarizes:

SCOTUS allows the Trump admin to restart third-country removals under a policy found by lower courts to violate federal law. The Democratic appointees dissent.

The deportations will be OK'ed at least through the next several months, with SCOTUS agreeing to hear the case in December.

Over the course of the second Trump administration, one study estimates that more than 25,000 people have been deported since 2025 using this process.

The liberals dissented from the granting of the stay. Without comment. The oral argument will be in December. The final opinion will be later. Why not continue the stay until then? 

The Supreme Court provides some questions for briefing, including a catch-all regarding any question the government deems appropriate. Steve Vladeck notes that he never saw that before. 

The removals include sending people to countries for which they have no previous connection. Someone from Latin America, for instance, can be sent to East Africa. The whole thing is simply horrible. 

They might want to call this an "emergency docket" case, but the order has no explanation. It merely provides instructions. It is a shadow docket decision. 

Odds and Ends

I found the graphic novel form of To Kill A Mockingbird well done. I forgot a few plot tidbits. 

The Mets had a better second half, especially since the trading deadline, than expected. Various minor league pitchers and/or pitchers back from injury did well. They still, with a good Nationals finish (the team had gone into a swoon), wound up in last place. 

A few races went down to the wire. White Sox will at least be a Wild Card. Congrats. Rooting for you!

Non-Citizen on Voting Rolls Follies

I discussed a story about the rapidly decreasing number of supposed noncitizens on voting rolls. Voting rolls, not actually voting. 

Coincidentally, the Supreme Court handed down a related order. I updated the piece. The limited immediate reach makes the opinion less problematic (for now), but also makes it even less necessary for SCOTUS (as Jackson argues) to intervene. 

ETA: vs. the second case, where they said: "We meant it, morons." 

Two Films

Tubi continues to provide interesting films.

Paperback Hero is a charming Australian romantic comedy with Hugh Jackman having a chance to keep his accent. He's a truck driver who wrote a romance novel, which leads to complications. Nothing surprising, just overall enjoyable.

The Pastor and the Pro is weirder. A young pastor-in-training decides to hire a prostitute, whom he likes, to be his escort to a church function. The use of Jacob/Leah/Rachel for a romantic triangle is one sign of whimsy. This short film  (under eighty minutes) has some serious ideas and strong performances.

Constitution Day

September 17 was Constitution Day and David Souter's Birthday. Meanwhile, Trump continues to be anti-constitutional, including regarding the Media. Happy Suffrage Day (comments).