The Supreme Court’s November argument session is set to commence on Monday, following a relatively quiet period at the court. Justices and staff have been preparing for the upcoming oral arguments during this interim phase.
Effort to Halt Texas Border Wall Construction
On Thursday, a coalition consisting of an environmental group, a local landowner, and a church preservation organization filed a request with the Supreme Court. They urged the court to reject the Trump administration’s bid to resume construction of a border wall in the Big Bend region of southwestern Texas. This filing comes as the administration seeks to advance the project.
Earlier in the week, on Tuesday, the court dismissed a request from three cities and a legal services group representing immigrants. These entities had asked the justices to halt an agreement between Texas and the Department of Justice. This agreement prevents the enforcement of a Biden-era rule that allowed immigration judges to temporarily pause certain deportation proceedings. The court’s decision to deny the request was issued without any noted dissents.
Legal Developments in Immigration Cases
In Southern California, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong has issued an order requiring immigration agents to establish individualized reasonable suspicion before detaining someone for immigration enforcement purposes, citing substantial evidence that agents have been targeting individuals who appear Latino.
Judge Frimpong acknowledged a previous Supreme Court decision from the prior year that had stayed her earlier order. However, she emphasized that the high court had not provided any reasoning for granting the stay. In her written opinion, she stated, “This Court cannot be faulted for failing to follow guidance that was never given.” The Trump administration has indicated its intention to appeal this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Related Post: Supreme Court to Review Texas Ten Commandments Law
In a separate development, Utah has filed criminal charges against prediction market operator Kalshi and two of its executives, which could represent a new tactic in how states try to assert regulatory authority over prediction markets, a clash that appears headed to a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Last week, the University of North Carolina School of Law conducted an experiment to test whether AI could replicate the reasoning of U.S. Supreme Court justices. During a simulated argument, participants observed that while the AI justices reached the same conclusions as their real-life counterparts, their interactions lacked the human touch. Unlike the actual justices, the AI did not interrupt or interject during oral arguments. Nicole Downing, the law school’s assistant dean for AI, noted, “There’s still this huge gap in it actually feeling human.”
Preview of Upcoming Supreme Court Cases
On Tuesday, the court will hear oral arguments in a case brought by Catholic preschools. These schools contend that their exclusion from Colorado’s universal preschool program constitutes religious discrimination. They argue that this exclusion violates the First Amendment, as the state refuses to grant them an exemption from rules requiring them to admit all children, including those from LGBTQ families.
Earlier this month, the issue of cruel and unusual punishment gained national attention following Tennessee’s failed attempt to execute Christa Pike on September 30. The botched execution brought to light various past rulings on the death penalty and highlighted several unresolved issues in this contentious area.
Insights from Legal Contributors
In a recent column, Richard Re discussed Justice Samuel Alito’s efforts to discourage judicial “insecurity.” Re argued that what Alito labels as insecurity is more accurately described as humility and self-awareness—qualities that are commendable rather than problematic.
Related Post: Supreme Court Splits on Election Commissioner Appointment Referral Request
Edward Foley examined the growing dispute over the division of authority between states and the federal government regarding voting regulations. This includes determining voter eligibility in congressional elections and managing the voting process. One notable case involves allegations of noncitizen voting in California, which may soon reach the Supreme Court.
Currently, the 2026-27 term appears less focused on Trump-related matters compared to its predecessor. However, this could change by mid-January, as the justices are expected to consider several petitions for review from the Trump administration or Trump himself.
This week’s historical feature focuses on Justice John McKinley, who served on the court from 1838 to 1852. Following the Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837, Congress added two new seats to the court. While the position was an honor, its responsibilities were demanding, as McKinley would soon discover. Born in May 1780 in Culpeper County, Virginia, McKinley’s family relocated to Kentucky, where he self-taught law, passed the bar in 1800, and practiced in Frankfort and Louisville. After moving to Alabama around 1818, he amassed wealth through land speculation, partnered with Andrew Jackson in the Cypress Land Company, and co-founded the city of Florence, Alabama. Jackson referred to McKinley as “the most prominent man” in the state.
McKinley entered the Alabama Legislature in 1820 and, after supporting Jackson’s presidential bid, won a U.S. Senate seat in 1826. In the Senate, he advocated for bankruptcy policies favoring small farmers. However, his vote to override Jackson’s Maysville Road veto raised questions about his loyalty, leading to his defeat in the 1830 reelection. After serving one term in the U.S. House and another in the state legislature, he secured a second Senate term in 1836 but left shortly after to accept his Supreme Court appointment.
