The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted what may be its last grants of the October 2025-26 term. All of them were one-time relists: Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, involving preemption of tort claims involving the blockbuster herbicide Roundup under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, asking what plaintiffs must show to plead an ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim; Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., involving the kinds of statements that can render a generic drug maker liable for inducing patent infringement; and Chatrie v. United States, which asks whether law enforcement’s use of a so-called “geofence warrant” to obtain cellphone location-history data violates the Fourth Amendment.

Brothers in Law is a recurring series by brothers Akhil and Vikram Amar, with special emphasis on measuring what the Supreme Court says against what the Constitution itself says. For more content from Akhil and Vikram, please see Akhil’s free weekly podcast, “Amarica’s Constitution,” Vikram’s regular columns on Justia, and Akhil’s new book, Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution, 1840-1920.

On Tuesday, the court heard oral argument in a high-profile case that revolved around matters that Americans argue passionately about: gun rights, property rights, and race rules. 

The case, Wolford v. Lopez, involves a Hawaii law that says gun toters who wish to carry their guns on private property generally open to the public – places such as shops and restaurants – must secure the affirmative consent of the private property owner. Gun toters cannot simply presume that their guns are allowed. The private-property owner must affirmatively indicate consent – for example by posting a “guns welcome” sign on the premises or by orally indicating that guns are permitted.

Updated on Jan. 22 at 5:05 p.m.

In December, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to use a new congressional map enacted to give Republicans five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, blocking a lower court’s ruling that the map unconstitutionally sorted voters based on race. On Tuesday night, Republicans came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to prohibit California from using a new map – adopted in response to Texas’ map – that added five Democratic seats there. In a filing obtained by The New York Times, lawyers for California Republicans challenging the new map decried what they characterized as the “pernicious and unconstitutional use of race” “[u]nder the guise of partisan line-drawing” in creating the 2025 map.

Updated on Jan. 21 at 7:20 p.m.

As the justices turn at last to releasing opinions in argued cases, it should be no surprise that they start with unanimous decisions like Berk v. Choy. There, although several of the justices may not be fans of medical malpractice litigation, none of them was willing to clutter up the federal district courts with the special procedures Delaware (like many other states) has designed to limit that litigation.

We live blogged as the court heard oral argument in Trump v. Cook, on President Donald Trump’s effort to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, from office.

Continue Reading