Yesterday’s argument in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v Saba Capital Master Fund showed a bench surprisingly receptive of private parties having the ability to sue investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Although the justices have been skeptical of implied rights of action in recent decades, most of them seemed to think that the statute went far enough to authorize the limited relief sought in the case before them, namely the right to invalidate a contract inconsistent with the statute.

I am pleased to introduce SCOTUSblog readers to the Interim Docket Blog, where Will Baude, Dan Epps, I, and surely others, will comment on Supreme Court interim orders and related matters.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with the case of an Alabama man who has been on that state’s death row for more than two decades. The question before the justices was how the lower courts should have addressed Joseph Smith’s claim that he is intellectually disabled and therefore cannot be executed when Smith has taken five separate IQ tests over a span of almost 40 years. After roughly two hours of oral argument, the justices were divided over whether, as Smith contended, the lower courts had properly concluded, based on a wide range of evidence, that he is intellectually disabled.

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.

It’s only December, but the Supreme Court has only one more month to grant all the cases it needs to fill out the rest of this term’s argument calendar. To get that done, it has had to go into overdrive mode on the relist front.

A Second Opinion is a recurring series by Haley Proctor on the Second Amendment and constitutional litigation.

It is widely believed that the Supreme Court adjudicates Second Amendment claims using a “history and tradition” test. The label (sometimes referred to as “text, history, and tradition”) has the potential to mislead, with bad consequences for Second Amendment litigation and beyond. This month’s column explains why I believe the label is inapt, and why “text and history” is a better label for the court’s approach to the Second Amendment – and constitutional interpretation more broadly.