ScotusCrim is a recurring series by Rory Little focusing on intersections between the Supreme Court and criminal law.

Today’s column is my busman’s holiday project: providing nerd-like numbers and information focused solely on Supreme Court cases that address criminal law issues.

This is especially relevant given that the court has now posted its calendar for the final argument session of the 2025-26 term, with oral arguments to take place from April 20-29. And the court will also begin issuing more “headline” opinions this coming Friday. Aside from boring civil cases like birthright citizenship or firing a governor of the Federal Reserve 😀, we are awaiting some big criminal law decisions. And some hugely significant criminal law cases still have oral arguments upcoming (there will be three two-week oral argument sessions at the end of February, March, and April).

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has gradually abandoned an idea – the separation of powers – that the Framers thought was vital to the preservation of liberty. Instead, the court seems to have been captured by a different – and, I would argue, contrary – idea: a strong presidential system supported by a concept known as the “unitary executive,” which advocates that the president has total authority over the executive branch.

In their petitions for review, litigants spell out – in detail – why the Supreme Court should take up their case. These petitions can cover a wide range of topics, but many of them include a lengthy discussion of what is known as a circuit split – that is, a disagreement between the federal courts of appeals – on the legal issue on which they are asking the court to weigh in. Why? Circuit splits are among the top factors that the court considers when determining whether to grant review.

Circuit splits themselves, however, come in a variety of forms. Splits can be messy or clean. Percolating or persistent. Old or new. Indeed, there is sometimes controversy on whether a circuit split even exists in the first place.

Part of grabbing the Supreme Court’s attention is thus deciding what characteristics to play up and when – hence, the art of the circuit split.

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

In April, the Supreme Court will hear Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission. This case has gotten less attention than many other cases this term. But its outcome could have significant consequences for the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of the country’s most influential and powerful federal agencies, by limiting its discretion to punish wrongdoers and therefore reining in some of this agency’s considerable – and more controversial – authority.

Somewhat to our surprise, one of the most popular features of the SCOTUStoday newsletter (which you should sign up for, if you haven’t already) has turned out to be the SCOTUS Quotes.

Although we didn’t include these in the first few editions of SCOTUStoday, since Oct. 6 we’ve brought you around 80 such quotations, mostly consisting of remarks made by Supreme Court justices either at oral argument or in their opinions.

In general, the quotes we’ve used fall into two buckets: (1) humor from the bench or (2) discussion of a justice’s legal philosophy. Without further ado, here are a few of our favorites from both categories.