Supreme Court announces when it will hear oral argument in several important cases

The Supreme Court on Tuesday released the calendars for the October and November argument sessions. The October session will feature 10 arguments over five days, while the November session will feature nine over five days.

Both sessions include important cases. On Oct. 15, the court will hear oral arguments in a Louisiana case that could limit the federal Voting Rights Act, and on Oct. 7 it will hear a challenge to Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy.” In November, there will be oral argument in a case involving the methods used to assess a defendant’s claim that he is intellectually disabled and therefore cannot be executed.

When the court hears argument in Louisiana v. Callais, it will be the second round of arguments in the case, which comes to the court as a challenge to the congressional map that the Louisiana Legislature adopted in 2024. That map, which contained a second majority-Black district, followed a federal court’s ruling that a 2022 map, which contained only one majority-Black district, violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election practices that result “in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” A group of voters describing themselves as “non-African American” went to federal court, where they argued that the 2024 map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander – that is, it relied too heavily on race.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in March, but it did not issue an opinion in the case. Instead, on the last day before the court’s summer recess began, it announced that the case would be reargued in the fall. On Aug. 1, the justices instructed the litigants in the case to file briefs discussing whether the creation of a second majority-Black district in the 2024 map violates the Constitution – a question that at least one voting-rights expert suggested could call into question the constitutionality of Section 2 of the VRA.

On Oct. 7, the justices will hear argument in Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” – therapy to “convert” an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. A federal appeals court in Denver upheld the law, reasoning that it regulated the health-care profession rather than therapists’ speech.

And in Hamm v. Smith, on Nov. 4, the justices will consider how and whether courts should assess a defendant’s claim that he cannot be executed because he is intellectually disabled when he has taken multiple IQ tests.

The October argument schedule

Villarreal v. Texas (Oct. 6) – Whether a court can allow a defendant and his attorney to meet but bar them from discussing his testimony during an overnight recess

Berk v. Choy (Oct. 6) – Whether certain state procedural rules apply to lawsuits filed in federal court

Chiles v. Salazar (Oct. 7) – Challenge to the constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy

Barrett v. United States (Oct. 7) – Whether the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause prevents a New York man from receiving two separate sentences – one for violating a federal law criminalizing the use of a gun during a crime of violence and one for murder or manslaughter during a robbery

Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections (Oct. 8) – Whether a member of Congress and other litigants have a legal right to challenge state laws governing the counting of mail-in ballots

U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (Oct. 8) – Whether the exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act that bars lawsuits for claims that “arise out of the loss” or “miscarriage” of “letters or postal matter” applies to claims that stem from a USPS employee’s intentional failure to deliver mail to a designated address

Bowe v. United States (Oct. 14) – Procedural questions arising from the application of the federal laws governing post-conviction relief for federal prisoners

Ellingburg v. United States (Oct. 14) – Whether a restitution order, imposed as part of a criminal sentence, is the kind of “punishment” that can violate the Constitution’s ex post facto clause, which bars laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime or criminalize conduct that was legal when it occurred

Louisiana v. Callais (consolidated with Robinson v. Callais) (Oct. 15) – Reargument of challenge to Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map

Case v. Montana (Oct. 15) – Whether police need probable cause that there is an emergency to enter a house without a warrant or whether it is enough that they have a reasonable belief that someone inside the house needs immediate help

The November argument schedule

Rico v. United States (Nov. 3) – Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release

Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (Nov. 3) – Whether a member of the U.S. armed forces who was wounded in a suicide bombing at a military base in Afghanistan can sue the government contractor who employed the bomber

Hamm v. Smith (Nov. 4) – Whether and how courts should assess a defendant’s claim that he cannot be executed because he is intellectually disabled when he has taken multiple IQ tests

Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (Nov. 4) – Whether a district court’s final judgment as to completely diverse parties (that is, parties from different states) must be vacated when an appeals court later determines that it erroneously dismissed a non-diverse party when the case was transferred to federal court

Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton (Nov. 5) – Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes a time limit to set aside a default judgment that is devoid for lack of personal jurisdiction

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections (Nov. 10) – Whether an inmate can file a lawsuit seeking to hold a government official personally responsible for violations of a federal law that protects the religious rights of prisoners, rather than suing the government entity that employs the official

Geo Group v. Menocal (Nov. 10) – Whether a government contractor’s claim that it is entitled to sovereign immunity for work that it did on behalf of the government falls within the collateral order doctrine, allowing a court of appeals to rule on its appeal of the denial of immunity

Fernandez v. United States (Nov. 12) – Whether the kind of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may justify a lower sentence can include reasons that can also be cited as reasons to vacate a sentence in a motion for post-conviction relief

Rutherford v. United States (consolidated with Carter v. United States) (Nov. 12) – Whether federal courts can consider changes to criminal law under the First Step Act that do not apply retroactively as “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction