Supreme Court's Criminal Law Term Concludes with Notable Pro-Defense Outcomes

The Supreme Court concluded its October 2025-26 term, issuing decisions in 16 'pure' criminal law cases. This number represents 28% of the 57 total argued cases decided by the court after full briefing and argument. Including *First Choice v. Davenport*, a civil case with criminal law implications, brings the total to 17 cases, nearly 30% of the court's merits work.

Of these 16 criminal law decisions, 11 produced results favoring a criminal defendant or a criminal defense position. This outcome, approximately two-thirds of the pure criminal law cases, mirrors a trend from the previous term, where 10 of 14 cases similarly favored defendants.

The court's criminal law docket extends beyond these 'pure' cases. Justices decided an additional 11 cases summarily, without full briefing or argument. Roughly 20 other cases involved criminal law issues indirectly, and five full decisions addressed immigration topics. The court has also granted review in 24 cases for the upcoming term, with nine categorized as criminal.

Several cases drew particular attention during the term:

* In *Hunter v. United States*, the court addressed guilty pleas. An 8-1 majority, led by Justice Elena Kagan, ruled that courts can review an appeal waiver in a guilty plea if a 'miscarriage of justice' would otherwise occur. Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion questioned the constitutional validity of the plea bargain system, a position Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, briefly countered.

* Fourth Amendment issues arose in *Chatrie v. United States*. A six-justice majority, with Justice Kagan writing, determined that government-compelled acquisition of cellphone location data from a carrier constitutes a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment. The court remanded the case to lower courts for further consideration on how to apply warrant requirements for such 'geofence' searches. Justice Gorsuch also authored a concurrence questioning the foundations of modern Fourth Amendment law.

* Two death penalty decisions included *Pitchford v. Cain* and *Hamm v. Smith*. In *Pitchford*, a 5-4 opinion by Justice Kavanaugh mandated that defendants receive a fair opportunity to rebut a prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for striking Black jurors. In *Hamm*, the court dismissed the case as 'improvidently granted' after full briefing and oral argument. Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that the case was deemed unsuitable for settling how to consider multiple IQ test scores when evaluating intellectual disability for death penalty eligibility under *Atkins v. Virginia*.

* Second Amendment cases included *Wolford v. Lopez* and *United States v. Hemani*. In *Hemani*, a unanimous court with Justice Gorsuch writing, vacated the conviction of a defendant for unlawful weapon possession, citing a Second Amendment violation. In *Wolford*, a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Alito, struck down a Hawaii statute banning concealed-carry firearm possession on privately-owned property open to the public without explicit owner permission, finding it violated the Second Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts participated in the majority for all 11 pro-defendant cases but authored none of those opinions. This reflects his consistent practice of not writing in criminal cases, a pattern some observers describe as 'moderating from the front' and strategic use of his opinion assignment power.

The court's approach to the Second Amendment continues to evolve. In addition to decisions this term, the court will review two consolidated cases, *Viramontes v. Cook County*, concerning whether AR-15 semi-automatic rifles are protected under the Second Amendment. This extends the ongoing debate regarding the scope and limitations of the Second Amendment.

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch have independently developed their analytical styles, authoring separate opinions. Justice Gorsuch has questioned established legal doctrine in his concurrences in *Hunter*, *Chatrie*, and *Barrett v. United States*. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has also established her voice, frequently filing separate dissents. The use of 'history and tradition' in constitutional analysis remains a subject of judicial debate, exemplified by differing opinions in cases such as *Wolford* and the birthright citizenship case.