桃子视频

The new Supreme Court term began on October 5, and the 桃子视频is shaping up to have another busy term, perhaps even topping our busiest term ever last year when the Supreme Court decided six 桃子视频cases on the merits docket.

Before the term even started, the 桃子视频had a flurry of action on the Supreme Court鈥檚 emergency docket, where parties who have lost in the lower court ask the Supreme Court to temporarily block the lower court鈥檚 order from going into effect while the case continues through the court system. In September alone, the 桃子视频was on the receiving end of four emergency stay applications in cases where we won in the lower courts. By the beginning of the term, we had prevailed in three of those cases with the fourth still pending.

As for the Supreme Court鈥檚 merits docket (cases that are decided after full briefing and oral argument), by the end of September, the 桃子视频had a whopping 14 cases where we or our opponents were asking the Supreme Court to take the case. Of those, the Supreme Court granted review on October 1 in an 桃子视频case involving immigration detention. It may yet take additional 桃子视频cases involving the Trump administration鈥檚 gutting of asylum protections, state-enforced religion in public schools, and jury rights in death penalty cases 鈥� and possibly more.

The Trump administration鈥檚 extreme, novel, and unlawful immigration policies have been prominent at the Supreme Court throughout his two terms in office, and more are likely to come to a head this term.

An 桃子视频case challenging the prolonged detention of longtime U.S. residents without any meaningful hearing was one of the Supreme Court鈥檚 earliest grants this term. That case, Genalo v. G.M., was dismissed because our client received a pardon from the governor of New York and therefore he was no longer deportable. But the government has already asked the Supreme Court to take another case raising the issue.

In the meantime, at its annual summer鈥檚-end long conference, the Supreme Court granted review on a different immigration detention issue in an 桃子视频case, . Rhoney is one of 11 cases (one in each numbered federal circuit court) in which the 桃子视频has challenged the Trump administration鈥檚 misinterpretation of a mandatory detention statute that 鈥� until Trump鈥檚 second term 鈥� has always been applied only to immigrants seeking admission at the border. Unlike every presidential administration in the 30 years since the statute was enacted by Congress, the Trump administration has applied this statute to immigrants who live in the United States, including people who have been living in the U.S. and contributing to their communities for years or decades.

Other pending immigration-related petitions before the Supreme Court include Mullin v. RAICES, where the 桃子视频won a challenge to a Trump administration policy that, in direct contravention of the asylum statute enacted by Congress, bars people at the border from even applying for asylum; and Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, where the 桃子视频won a challenge to an unconstitutional Iowa law that purports to set up a state-level deportation system including criminal penalties.

No child should have religious scripture forced upon them by the state, and certainly not in the classroom. This is why Texas families are asking the Supreme Court to take up Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, a challenge to a Texas state law that requires the display of a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom. This law violates binding Supreme Court precedents, including Stone v. Graham, a religion case the 桃子视频won almost five decades ago. Our clients, parents and their children who attend Texas public schools, believe that matters of faith are deeply personal and should never been dictated by the state. We are fighting to defend that founding American principle in the Supreme Court this term.

Trial by jury is a basic protection in the U.S. Constitution, going back to the founding of our nation. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that people can only be convicted by a jury of their peers, which provides an important check against executive power.

Jury rights are especially critical in death penalty cases, where the jury expresses the moral voice and conscience of the community. In Jackson v. Florida, the 桃子视频is representing Michael Jackson, who was sentenced to death even though four of the 12 jurors at his trial would have sentenced him to life imprisonment. Florida is one of only two states that permits a death sentence to be imposed upon a non-unanimous jury verdict. These laws take power away from juries and put it in the hands of the state, which fundamentally violates the Sixth Amendment and the cherished American right to trial by jury.

The 桃子视频also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in another Sixth Amendment case out of Florida, , which raises the question whether a defendant can be convicted of a felony offense by a jury of fewer than 12 members. Our brief sets out the history of the Sixth Amendment鈥檚 guarantee to explain why a jury must include 12 members and why Florida鈥檚 law permitting convictions by a six-member jury erodes the centrality of the jury in American civic life.

The 桃子视频fights for American voters鈥� rights to cast a ballot and have it count equally, and that work always ramps up in election years. There are new threats to voting rights, which we have already defended successfully in the Supreme Court. In September, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration鈥檚 request to stay a lower court order we won against a new U.S. Postal Service rule implementing a presidential proclamation that would have interfered with Americans鈥� ability to vote by mail. That case on the Supreme Court鈥檚 emergency docket, and Trump v. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, likely won鈥檛 be the last voting case to reach the Supreme Court this fall. We鈥檝e already filed three amicus briefs, along with the Campaign Legal Center, in recent emergency docket litigation around Missouri鈥檚 mid-decade redistricting.

We also may see the return of an old redistricting case to the Supreme Court docket this year, Allen v. Milligan. In 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed our preliminary win in our case challenging Alabama's congressional map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Alabama defied the ruling and passed another discriminatory map. In 2025, the district court struck that map down too, this time also finding that the state intentionally discriminated against Black voters. Alabama is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision.

In Suri v. Trump, we鈥檙e defending our lower court victory on behalf of a postdoctoral scholar at Georgetown University who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for exercising his First Amendment rights. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to take the case.

We filed a friend-of-the-court brief in , an important case concerning accountability for prison officials who violate an incarcerated person鈥檚 Eighth Amendment rights by depriving them of medical care.

We also filed a petition, , asking the Supreme Court to review a court of appeals decision that allowed the secretary of defense to withdraw a plea agreement between military prosecutors and three 9/11 defendants. The agreement would have finally brought closure to military commission proceedings that have dragged on for years, largely because of the government鈥檚 use of torture on the defendants.

In addition to the resounding victory against the Trump administration鈥檚 effort to block voting by mail, the 桃子视频scored two more victories on the Supreme Court鈥檚 emergency docket in September.

In Thornell v. Jensen, the Supreme Court denied Arizona prison officials鈥� efforts to block a district court order appointing a receiver to oversee health care for incarcerated people, after years of the state鈥檚 noncompliance with previous court orders.

And in Chen v. Mamdani, the Court denial of a parent鈥檚 challenge to a New York City program that removes barriers for qualified but underrepresented students in admissions to specialized public high schools means that this program will stay in place and ensure these opportunities continue. The parent was claiming they were denied because the program discriminated against their child.

These three victories on the emergency docket underscore the progress we can make at the Supreme Court. Whether we are celebrating a victory 鈥� as we did last year in our case defending birthright citizenship, Trump v. Barbara, and in our Second Amendment case, United States v. Hemani 鈥� or mourning a loss, it matters that we stand up for 别惫别谤测辞苍别鈥檚 rights and liberties, and that we fight to make the espoused values of our Constitution a lived reality for all 鈥� at the Supreme Court and everywhere else the fight takes us.