In Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States, argued on Wednesday, the Supreme Court considered what constitutes permissible grounds for a federal inmate to claim to have “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the defendants’ claims in both cases. 

If you’ve followed coverage of the Supreme Court’s 2025-26 term over the past few months, you’d likely say this term’s theme is executive power. The court already has added three major cases on the scope of presidential authority to its oral arguments docket – the tariffs dispute and two battles over removing federal agency leaders – and will have the opportunity to take up more, including cases on President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The court is also fielding several requests related to executive power on the interim docket, perhaps most prominently being Trump’s deployment of the National Guard.

The Supreme Court will kick off 2026 with a series of arguments in blockbuster cases. In a calendar released on Wednesday afternoon, the justices announced that they will hear arguments in January in cases involving transgender athletes, the latest chapter in the court’s gun rights jurisprudence, and President Donald Trump’s bid to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. 

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.

The Supreme Court had some good news and some bad news for the petitioners in relisted cases this week. It was good news for the state of Mississippi in Watson v. Republican National Committee; as we predicted, the court agreed to revisit the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit holding that federal statutes establishing federal “election day“ preempt a state law permitting election officials to count absentee ballots cast before election day that arrive a few days after it. But it was bad news for Quentin Veneno, who in Veneno v. United States challenged (among other things) Congress’ constitutional authority to criminalize conduct between members of the same Indian tribe that occurs on tribal land. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of certiorari, questioning precedent holding that Congress has plenary (that is, complete and absolute) authority over the internal affairs of Indian tribes. They argued that no such power resides within the language of the Indian commerce clause, which, they noted, involves the very same language as the commerce clause, which has been construed far more narrowly.

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

My most recent column considered the challenges involved in determining the legal rules created by the people who ratified and amended the Constitution, given that the answers lie so far in the past. This column will consider the challenges of applying those rules to resolve present-day disputes.