Supreme Court Adds Three Cases, Addresses Emergency Applications Ahead of New Term

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision to allow rapid deportations to third-party countries and its future hearing on the legality of such removals could have implications for Texas, a state with significant border activity and immigrant populations. Additionally, cases concerning the detention of noncitizens without bond hearings and the enforcement of zoning ordinances against religious institutions may affect communities and legal frameworks within the state.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court added three new cases to its oral argument docket for the upcoming 2026-27 term this week, which officially begins Monday. The court also addressed emergency applications and announced a recusal. On Thursday, the court included a case concerning the detention of noncitizens apprehended within the United States without bond hearings. Another newly granted case involves the enforcement of zoning ordinances against religious institutions. On Wednesday, the court allowed Tennessee to proceed with the execution of Christa Pike, sentenced to death for a 1995 murder. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Pike survived the execution attempt, and Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee has since halted remaining executions scheduled for this year. On Tuesday, the court granted a request to temporarily permit rapid deportations to third-party countries, defined as those not listed in a removal order. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson indicated they would deny the request. The court will hear arguments on December 9 regarding the legality of these removals and whether the district court had the authority to suspend them. On Monday, Justice Samuel Alito announced his recusal from *Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County*, a case concerning climate change that will be argued on Monday. Also Monday, a dispute regarding the Federal Bureau of Prison’s policy on healthcare and accommodations for transgender inmates was placed on the interim docket. The court requested a response from challengers by Thursday, Oct. 8. The 2026-27 term officially begins Monday, with arguments scheduled for two cases. *Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County* will address whether a lawsuit filed in Colorado state court, seeking to hold energy companies accountable for climate change, can proceed or if federal law prohibits such claims. *Johnson v. United States Congress* will consider whether a federal district court can hear a constitutional challenge to a law limiting disability benefits for incarcerated veterans. ### Related Developments President Donald Trump commented on his judicial appointments in an interview with Time magazine. He stated he regretted nominating Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, saying, “I gave them the position of a lifetime and they voted against me often.” He contrasted this with justices appointed by Democrats, stating, “those three, they virtually never vary.” The Washington Post reported on the halted execution in Tennessee. Christa Pike's attorneys stated Thursday that she was in critical condition and receiving medical care. Gov. Bill Lee subsequently halted all state executions and initiated an investigation into the incident, expressing disappointment. USA Today reported on the Supreme Court's September 25 decision, which allowed the use of a modified centralized database to verify voters’ citizenship. Election officials from several large counties indicated they do not expect a significant impact on the Nov. 3 midterm elections due to the decision's proximity to Election Day. Eric Fey, elections director in St. Louis County, Missouri, noted, “I think that the SAVE database can be used as a tool for the states but it must be used responsibly.” Bloomberg Law reported on the court's order in the deportation case, which included an unusual clause allowing the government to raise "Such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case." Georgetown Law Professor Stephanie Barclay described this as a recognition that the case was moving to arguments quickly and justices might not have identified all relevant issues. West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams suggested the justices sought to identify all issues to resolve the matter. The New York Times reported on Chief Justice John Roberts’ summers on Hupper Island, Maine. The article noted that protests have occurred near his island residence following recent court rulings, and some long-time friends have reportedly distanced themselves socially due to disagreements with his decisions. ### Featured Commentary Julia D. Mahoney, in her Common Law column, discussed *Jouppi v. Alaska*, a case on the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause. She described it as an opportunity to clarify property rights for individuals across economic strata. Maria Glover, in a column for SCOTUSblog, expressed her belief that the Supreme Court is accumulating power beyond constitutional conferment. Steven Calabresi, in his Born Free and Equal column, applied the “born free and equal” clauses to the economic right to pursue one's chosen profession. ### Judicial History: Justice Henry Baldwin Justice Henry Baldwin served on the Supreme Court from 1830 to 1844. Historian accounts describe Baldwin as exhibiting erratic behavior, with his colleague Justice Joseph Story calling him “partially deranged at all times.” Born in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1780, Baldwin graduated from Yale in 1797 and attended Litchfield Law School. He established a law practice in Pittsburgh and co-owned a newspaper. Baldwin’s political career included serving in the House for Pennsylvania, where he chaired the Committee on Manufactures and supported high tariffs. His defense of Andrew Jackson during the Seminole War further aided his career. Jackson nominated Baldwin to the court in 1829, and the Senate confirmed him 41-2. South Carolinians cast the dissenting votes, generally opposing Baldwin’s pro-tariff stance. Baldwin reportedly sought to resign from the court in his first year but was persuaded by Jackson to remain. He recorded seven dissents in 1831, a notable number for the Marshall court era. One dissent in *Ex parte Crane* argued the Supreme Court lacked power to issue writs ordering lower federal courts to take specific actions. In *Cherokee Nation v. Georgia*, Baldwin wrote separately, asserting that “the judicial power cannot divest the States of rights of sovereignty,” aligning with Georgia's position on Indian removal. On slavery, Baldwin was the sole dissenter in *United States v. The Amistad*, and in 1841's *Groves v. Slaughter*, he argued the Constitution regarded slaves as property. In 1833, Baldwin was hospitalized and absent for the term. Despite this, he returned and served for 11 more years until his death in 1844. Accounts from this period describe him as continuing to write incoherent legal opinions and experiencing violent outbursts. Friends also reported financial issues. Baldwin died in April 1844 in Philadelphia. Historians note his limited impact on law, though he is credited with establishing the practice of written dissents.