The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.
The Supreme Court is continuing to chip away at its relist backlog, though not exactly at warp speed. The justices denied review in three such cases on Monday. Most notably, they closed the book (for now) on the remaining Second Amendment challenges to the federal ban on felons possessing firearms. In late January, the court denied review in 76 of the 78 petitions then pending that raised that issue. Monday, it disposed of the final two holdouts – Vincent v. Bondi and Thompson v. United States – without comment. For those keeping score at home, that makes it a clean sweep.
The court also denied review in Johnson v. High Desert State Prison, which asked whether indigent prisoners pursuing a joint civil action may divide the $350 filing fee among themselves. Justice Elena Kagan noted that she would have granted review, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the denial. They argued that prohibiting fee-splitting is both legally incorrect and functionally shuts the courthouse doors to prisoners who typically earn between 13 cents and $1.30 per hour. It takes only four votes to grant review; it’s noteworthy that none of the remaining six justices was willing to provide the fourth vote as a courtesy.
There is just one new relist this week, but it has a distinctly familiar feel. Kendrick Jarrell Beaird was spotted pointing his Glock pistol at someone at an abandoned fast-food restaurant. That’s never a good idea, particularly when, like Beaird, you’re a former felon and prohibited from possessing firearms. Beaird was convicted and because his Glock had a full 17-round magazine, his sentence was enhanced because the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines increase the base offense level if the firearm is capable of accepting a “large capacity magazine,” and the Sentencing Commission’s official commentary defines that term to include magazines holding more than 15 rounds.
In Beaird v. United States, petitioner presses three claims. First, he raises the now-standard argument that the felon-in-possession statute violates the Second Amendment. Because his prior convictions include violent offenses, he cannot credibly pursue the more sympathetic as-applied-to-nonviolent-felons theory; instead, he must argue the statute is facially unconstitutional (that is, the statute is unconstitutional across the board). Given Monday’s denials in Vincent and Thompson, that argument appears to face long odds.
Second, and more interestingly, Beaird challenges the Sentencing Guidelines enhancement. He contends that the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Kisor v. Wilkie – which somewhat curtailed deference to agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations – undermines the earlier case of Stinson v. United States, which held that the Sentencing Guidelines commentary controls unless it is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent” with the text. The courts of appeals remain divided on how much Kisor trims Stinson, though many – including the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd and 9th Circuits – have concluded that the “large capacity magazine” commentary survives. That broader deference question is currently pending before the court in five-time relist Poore v. United States. If the court is inclined to say anything further about Stinson’s vitality, Beaird could be a way to do so – but because this particular commentary may satisfy Kisor, it would likely ride in tandem with (or trail behind) Poore.
Finally, Beaird renews the perennial commerce clause argument: that Congress lacks authority to criminalize possession of a firearm based solely on the fact that it crossed state lines at some point in the past. He urges the court to reconsider precedents approving that minimal nexus in light of more recent federalism decisions that require a showing of an affect on commerce. The court has repeatedly declined similar invitations, and is likely to do so here.
The government opposes certiorari across the board, emphasizing the court’s recent denials on each issue and arguing that Beaird is a poor vehicle in any event (perhaps particularly because he reportedly told police he was trying to sell the gun, which tends to strengthen the commerce nexus).
That’s all for this week!
New Relists
Beaird v. United States, 25-5343
Issues: (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment; (2) whether Stinson v. United States still accurately state the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines; and (3) whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, whether it is facially unconstitutional.
Returning Relists
Issues: (1) Whether, viewing the facts from the officers’ perspective at the time, the officers acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment by using bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially armed and actively resisting individual only until handcuffing could be accomplished; and (2) whether the panel erred in denying qualified immunity where no case clearly established that pre-handcuffing bodyweight pressure violates the Fourth Amendment.
(Relisted after the Sept. 29, Oct. 10, Oct. 17, Nov. 7, Nov. 14, Nov. 21, Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Foote v. Ludlow School Committee, 25-77
Issue: Whether a public school violates parents’ constitutional rights when, without parental knowledge or consent, the school encourages a student to transition to a new “gender” or participates in that process.
(Relisted after the Nov. 21, Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Issue: Whether the requirement that a verdict be based only on the evidence presented in the courtroom at trial satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)‘s “clearly established” requirement, and if so, whether a jury’s consideration of and reliance on extrinsic evidence as part of a jury experiment violates this rule.
(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9 and Jan. 16 conferences; now being held for consideration of response to Fields’ rehearing petition.)
Issue: Whether Article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, as authoritatively construed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, violates due process by arbitrarily denying prisoners access to postconviction DNA testing, rendering illusory prisoners’ state-created right to prove their innocence through newly discovered evidence.
(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc. v. Washington, 25-153
Issue: Whether ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to hold more than ten rounds are “Arms” presumptively entitled to constitutional protection under the plain text of the Second Amendment.
(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Issue: (1) Whether a ban on the possession of exceedingly common ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens, without compensation, of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause.
(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Viramontes v. Cook County, 25-238
Issue: Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.
(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Issue: Whether the Second Circuit’s qualified immunity analysis conflicts with this court’s repeated instruction that courts must define rights with specificity and look for close factual analogues in determining whether a Fourth Amendment right is clearly established.
(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Issue: (1) Whether it obviously violates the First Amendment to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing the information they volunteer; and (2) whether qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials who use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment, or whether qualified immunity shields those officials.
(Relisted after the Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16 and Jan. 23 conferences; record requested and now held awaiting arrival.)
Sittenfeld v. United States, 25-49
Issue: Whether, when the government alleges bribery based solely on lawful campaign contributions, the defendant may be convicted based on evidence that is ambiguous as to whether the public official conditioned any official act on the campaign contributions.
(Relisted after the Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Poore v. United States, 25-227
Issue: Whether the limits on agency deference announced in Kisor v. Wilkie and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo constrain the deference courts may accord the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of its own rules via commentary.
(Relisted after the Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
District of Columbia v. R.W., 25-248
Issue: (1) Whether a court assessing the existence of reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment may exclude a fact known to the officer, or instead must assess all the evidence when weighing the totality of the circumstances; and (2) whether, under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the officer in this case had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop.
(Relisted after the Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 25-382
Issue: Whether Oklahoma may tax the income of a Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizen who lives and works within the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation that McGirt v. Oklahoma held remains Indian country.
(Relisted after the Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, 25-430
Issue: Whether dismissal of a claim after assertion of the state-secrets privilege requires a district court to adjudicate the merits of the claim using the privileged information where the privileged information is relevant to a defense.
(Relisted after the Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, 25-421
Issue: Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.
(Relisted after the Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Issue: Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the AR-15.
(Relisted after the Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan, 25-579
Issues: (1) Whether the federal government’s submission to a state or territorial regulator of an application to renew a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 permit is “final agency action” that is immediately reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (2) whether the federal government must comply with the general environmental-review procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, before submitting a permit-renewal application under RCRA, which sets forth its own specific procedures to review environmental impacts in the context of hazardous-waste treatment.
(Relisted after the Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)
Cases: Beaird v. United States
Recommended Citation:
John Elwood,
Déjà vu all over again,
SCOTUSblog (Mar. 3, 2026, 11:09 AM),
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/deja-vu-all-over-again/
