Full List of Supreme Court Cases to Be Heard This Coming Fall Term
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The Supreme Court has released its October and November oral argument calendars for the 2025 term.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court will begin its 2025 term on October 6. The justices are expected to hear several cases about issues that have drawn public interest, including redistricting and conversion therapy bans.
A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington.
A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington.
Aaron M. Sprecher via AP
Villareal v. Texas
Oral arguments in Villareal v. Texas are scheduled for October 6. The case presents the question of whether a court violates a defendant's right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess.
The petitioner, David Asa Villareal, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison. Villareal testified during the trial.
On the first day of his testimony, the court declared a recess and dismissed the jury due to a previously scheduled administrative commitment. The court instructed Villarreal and his attorneys not to discuss his testimony during the 24-hour recess.
"When a defendant confers with his attorney, the defendant's testimony permeates every aspect of counsel's advice," attorneys for Villareal wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "There is no way to separate discussions of testimony from discussions of trial strategy. Prohibiting counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess is tantamount to preventing counsel from doing his or her job."
Berk v. Choy
The justices will also hear oral arguments in Berk v. Choy on October 6. The question presented in this case is whether a state law requiring the dismissal of a complaint if it is not accompanied by an expert affidavit may apply in federal court.
Chiles v. Salazar
The Court will hear arguments in Chiles v. Salazar on October 7. The justices will consider whether a Colorado state law banning conversion therapy for minors by mental health counselors violates free speech rights.
The petitioner, Kaley Chiles, is a licensed counselor.
"A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex," attorneys for Chiles wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express."
Attorneys for the respondents said legal precedent holds that the First Amendment permits states to regulate the practice of conversion therapy, "like other unsafe and ineffective health care treatments, even when those treatments involve speech."
Barrett v. United States
Oral arguments in Barrett v. United States are scheduled for October 7.
The petitioner, Dwayne Barrett, was convicted of aiding a robbery by driving the codefendant to the scene, aiding the use of a gun during that robbery, a "crime of violence," and aiding the use of a gun used to kill during a "crime of violence."
The justices will consider whether Barrett's sentencing on two charges violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections
The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections on October 8.
One petitioner in this case is Representative Mike Bost, a Republican from Illinois. The Court will consider whether the petitioners have presented sufficient factual allegations to challenge state time, place and manner regulations concerning federal elections.
Postal Service v. Konan
Oral arguments in Postal Service v. Konan are scheduled for October 8.
The case centers around an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act barring lawsuits for claims arising out of the "loss" or "miscarriage" of "letters or postal matter." The justices will consider whether the exception applies to claims that arise from a USPS employee's intentional failure to deliver mail to a designated address.
Bowe v. United States
The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bowe v. United States on October 14. The case centers around procedural questions related to the application of the federal laws governing post-conviction relief for federal prisoners.
Ellingburg v. United States
Oral arguments in Ellingburg v. United States are scheduled for October 14.
The Court will consider whether a restitution order, imposed as part of a criminal sentence, violates a clause of the Constitution barring laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime or criminalize conduct that was legal when it occurred.
Louisiana v. Callais
Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, is set for reargument on October 15. The justices first heard arguments in the redistricting case earlier this year. The Court will consider whether the map is racially gerrymandered to create majority-minority districts and whether the new districts violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
The case was consolidated with Robinson v. Callais.
Case v. Montana
The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Case v. Montana on October 15.
The justices will consider whether law enforcement can enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring.
Petitioner William Trevor Case alleges that law enforcement entered his home without a warrant and seized evidence used to prosecute Case for a felony. Case's ex-girlfriend had previously called law enforcement and said Case had threatened suicide during an argument over the phone.
Rico v. United States
Oral arguments in Rico v. United States are scheduled for November 3.
The Court will consider whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release. Petitioner Isabel Rico had her supervised release revoked by a court because she had been deemed a fugitive by a probation office in 2018.
Hencely v. Fluor Corporation
The Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation on November 3.
The justices will consider whether a member of the U.S. armed forces who was injured in a military base bombing can sue the government contractor who employed the bomber.
Hamm v. Smith
The Court will hear arguments in Hamm v. Smith on November 4.
The question presented is whether and how courts should assess a claim by a defendant that he cannot be executed because he is intellectually disabled.
The Alabama Department of Corrections argues that Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled, citing multiple IQ tests where he scored higher than the level required to prove intellectual disability under the law. The Department of Corrections is asking the Court to reverse a lower court's decision overturning Smith's sentence.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist
Oral arguments in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist are scheduled for November 4.
The case asks whether a district court's final judgment must be vacated when an appeals court later determines that it erroneously dismissed a party from the case when it was transferred to federal court.
Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton
The justices will hear oral arguments in Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton on November 5.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety
Oral arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety are set for November 10.
The Court will consider whether an inmate can file a lawsuit against a government official for violations of a federal law that protects the religious rights of prisoners, rather than the government entity that employs the official.
Damon Landor, the petitioner, is a practicing Rastafarian. He alleges that he was held down by two prison guards while his head was shaved.
Landor sued several officials and the Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety. A district court found that the law does not allow for damages against individual state officials.
The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal
The Court is expected to hear arguments in The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal on November 10.
Fernandez v. United States
The justices will hear arguments in Fernandez v. United States on November 12.
The Court will consider whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that may justify a lower sentence can also be cited as reasons to vacate a sentence in a motion for post-conviction relief.
Rutherford v. United States
Oral arguments in Rutherford v. United States are scheduled for November 12. The case has been consolidated with Carter v. United States.
The case also relates to "extraordinary and compelling reasons" allowing for a reduced sentence. The justices will consider whether a district court can address disparities created by the First Step Act's prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentencing reduction.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Texas Democrats who fled the state to block GOP redistricting push begin returning
Texas Democratic lawmakers who fled the state to deny a quorum and prevent a Republican redistricting plan are making their way back, each on their own timeline, multiple sources familiar with the matter told CBS News. Dozens of Texas House Democrats fled to blue states earlier this month after President Trump suggested the state should redraw its U.S. House district maps to secure more Republican seats. The Democrats have until now remained out of the state to deny Texas' Republican Gov. Greg Abbott a quorum, temporarily derailing a special legislative session that the governor called to reshape the state's congressional maps. The GOP-led redistricting effort would create five more Republican-leaning House seats ahead of the 2026 midterms. Republicans currently have a narrow majority in the House. Historically, the party that controls the White House typically loses ground in midterm elections. States usually redraw districts each decade to reflect population shifts after the decennial census. After successfully denying Texas Republicans a quorum multiple times in recent weeks, Democrats notched a small victory when the GOP wrapped the initial special session. With a new special session gaveled in on Friday, the Democrats have begun returning. Some are already in Texas, and the caucus is working on a count to tell whether the chamber will have a quorum Monday, the sources told CBS News. GOP officials in the state have threatened to arrest the lawmakers to compel their appearance at the state Capitol, and one Republican senator enlisted the help of the FBI to track down the legislators. The Democrats' return comes after they saw another victory with a push by California Democrats to combat the GOP advantage. Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom formally announced a redistricting plan which, under California law, would require a special election. The California governor said the effort is happening "in reaction to a president of the United States that called a sitting governor of the state of Texas and said 'find me five seats.'" "I know they say don't mess with Texas," Newsom said. "Well, don't mess with the great Golden State."
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Texas Gov. Abbott blasted for special session on gerrymandering failing again
In Texas on Friday, a special session to vote on new redistricted maps by state Republicans failed after not enough Democrats showed up to vote. There is another special session scheduled for Monday. Texas State Rep. John Bucy III (D) joins Alex Witt to discuss the issue.
CNN
4 hours ago
- CNN
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.'
