The High Court Report

OVERVIEW
Don't miss this action packed episode. In it, we cover three things:
News that the Supreme Court agreed to hear 4 new cases;
News that the Supreme Court will issue opinions
Stats, trends, and observations of last week's 4 opinions; and
Final thoughts on this week's oral arguments

NEW CERTIORARI GRANTS
Cases Added: Four new grants bring total to approximately 57 unique cases for the term
Geofence Warrants Case: Constitutional challenge to warrants allowing police access to cell phone user data by specific date, time, and location
Patent Infringement Case: Intellectual property dispute involving patent protection standards
Monsanto/Roundup Case: Product liability challenge over failure to warn about cancer dangers
Investment Fund Case: Securities litigation involving pleading standards for fund underperformance claims

Term Outlook: Current case count (57 unique cases) approaches last term's 62-63 cases, suggesting limited additional grants expected
JANUARY 20TH OPINIONS FORTHCOMING
Release Schedule: Supreme Court plans opinion release on Monday, January 20th Coverage Plan: Detailed opinion breakdowns scheduled for Thursday or Friday depending on volume Anticipation: Multiple pending cases await resolution from previous oral argument sessions
SCOTUS OPINION TRENDS & STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Reversal Patterns: Current term mirrors historical 69% reversal rate
3 reversals/vacates vs. 1 affirmance from first four decisions
Montana Supreme Court decision upheld; federal circuit courts overturned

Vote Distributions: Early decisions show typical voting patterns
2 unanimous (9-0) decisions: Barrett v. United States, Case v. Montana
1 decision 7-2, 1 decision 5-4
3 criminal law cases, 1 standing/election case

Authorship Patterns: Different justices authored each majority opinion
Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson wrote majorities
Gorsuch most active: 2 concurrences, 1 dissent
Jackson 2nd most active: 1 majority, 1 dissent

Judicial Fracturing Analysis: Early emergence of fractured reasoning despite agreement on outcomes
Notable example: Bost v. Illinois where Barrett and Kagan joined conclusion but rejected reasoning
Barrett criticized majority's "bespoke standing rule for...

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four major cases during the week of January 12, 2026, covering federal contractor jurisdiction, transgender athletics rights, and state agency immunity.
The Court issued its first four opinions of the term while demonstrating reluctance to expand constitutional protections in sensitive areas like transgender rights and police emergency powers.
Justice concerns about nationwide chaos and disruption emerged as recurring themes across multiple cases involving federalism and state authority questions.
Chevron Corporation v. Plaquemines Parish
Question Presented: Whether federal contractor removal statute permits federal jurisdiction for conduct "relating to" government contracts
Overview: Louisiana oil dumping lawsuit raises federalism questions about protecting contractors from local bias versus state court expertise.
Main Analysis:
Paul Clement invoked Daniel Webster's 1812 commentary about federal courts protecting nationally important projects from local prejudice
Chevron fears massive verdict after Louisiana secured $744 million judgment in similar WWII oil case
Chief Justice Roberts expressed "butterfly effect" concerns about sweeping federal jurisdiction for paper clip contractors
Both sides conceded Fifth Circuit test failed to follow statutory text

Prediction: Victory for Chevron or remand for different legal test application. Court disliked Fifth Circuit approach.
Key Tension: Federal protection from local bias versus state expertise in Louisiana environmental law
Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Question Presented: Whether Title IX permits excluding transgender students from gender-aligned athletics
Overview: Parallel cases create constitutional clash over state biological sex requirements versus federal anti-discrimination protections.
Main Analysis:
Majority seemed disinclined to draw constitutional lines protecting transgender people
Government's contradictory positions caught justices' attention - supports state biological sex requirements while challenging California's opposing law
Follows Skrmetti decision recognizing broad state authority over transgender issues
No appetite for constitutional intervention when states actively disagree

Prediction: Idaho and West Virginia victory. Court reluctant to wade into transgender debates.
Key Insight: Next frontier involves legitimacy of state laws protecting transgender status
CSX Galette v. NJ Transit Corp.
Question Presented: Whether state-created corporations retain sovereign immunity despite corporate structure
Overview: Transit authority immunity dispute affects numerous state agencies using corporate structures.
Main Analysis:
Court focused intensely on formality versus functionality question
Justice Kavanaugh expressed "chaos" concerns...

Bowe v. United States | Date Decided: 1/9/26 | Case No. 24-5438
Background: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[ a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. ” (emphasis added).
Question Presented:
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. * * * Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[ t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari. ” (emphasis added).
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Holding:
The Court has jurisdiction because §2244(b)(3)(E) does not bar this Court’s review of a federal prisoner’s request to file a second or successive §2255 motion.
Section 2244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed under §2255(h) by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences.

Result: Vacated and remanded
Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined and in which Justice Barrett joined as to Part I.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
For Petitioner: Andrew L. Adler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
For Respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below as to Question 1: Kasdin M. Mitchell, Dallas, Tex.

Case v. Montana | Date Decided: 1/14/26 | Case No. 24-624
Question Presented: Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.
Background
In this case, Case challenged the established emergency-aid exception by asking the Supreme Court to require probable cause rather than the current "objectively reasonable belief" standard for warrantless home entries during emergencies.
Holding:
Result: Affirmed.
Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch filed concurring opinions.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Oral Advocates:
For Petitioner: Fred A. Rowley, Jr., Los Angeles, CA.
For Respondent: Christian B. Corrigan, Solicitor General, Montana
United States as Amicus Curiae: Zoe A. Jacoby, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice.

Bost v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections | Date Decided: 1/14/26 | Case No. 24-568
Question Presented: Whether candidates running for federal office hold Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections, specifically the state laws that allow ballots to be receivd and counted after election day.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Holding: As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost holds standing to challenge the laws that govern the counting of votes in his election.
Result: Reversed and remanded.
Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in which Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Sotomayor joined.
Oral Advocates:
For Petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.;
United States, as Amicus Curiae: Michael Talent, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent: Jane E. Notz, Solicitor General, Chicago, Ill.