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

After the month-long “winter break” in oral arguments, the justices return to the bench on Jan. 12 for only (around) seven hours of argument in nine cases. A single one of them is a significant criminal-law-related case: Wolford v. Lopez, to be argued on Jan. 20. Another two address the rights of trans persons, which as I previously noted in a comment about the court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti raises potential criminal law issues in the future.

Meanwhile, in the recent denial of a stay regarding National Guard deployments (Trump v. Illinois on Dec. 23, 2025), two justices advanced a significant expansive view of the “party presentation principle” that I wrote about last month. Let’s address that first.

Updated on Jan. 8 at 5:03 p.m.

When the Supreme Court returns to the bench next week for the first argument of 2026, in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, it will confront a thorny dispute over the circumstances in which a federal contractor can transfer a case from state to federal court. The question comes to the justices in a high-profile case brought by Louisiana parishes – the equivalent of counties in that state – seeking to hold oil and gas companies liable for damage to the Louisiana coast. A federal appeals court in New Orleans rejected the companies’ latest attempt to move the case to federal court, but now the Supreme Court will weigh in. Litigants on both sides of the dispute tell the justices that the stakes are high, not only because of the amount of money in play, but also because of what the court’s ruling could mean for other companies that do business with the federal government.

As former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro prepares to fight drug, weapon, and narco-terrorism charges in the United States after being arrested in Caracas, Venezuela, early Saturday morning by U.S. military forces, legal scholars and analysts are putting a spotlight on past Supreme Court rulings about presidential authority, extraterritorial arrests, and the rights of foreign leaders while debating the legality of the Trump administration’s actions.

The cases they’re revisiting principally relate to two aspects of Saturday’s operation and the criminal case against Maduro: 1) Whether President Donald Trump had the authority to send U.S. forces into Venezuela to arrest Maduro; and 2) Maduro’s likely defense in U.S. courts.

Trump v. Slaughter is among the most important tests to date of the Supreme Court’s view of the “unitary executive theory” – the idea that control over the entire executive branch is vested in the president. Specifically, the case asks whether the president can fire leaders of the Federal Trade Commission for any reason. More broadly, though, it speaks to the separation of powers: Can Congress create independent agencies whose heads are largely insulated from presidential control, or does the president’s inherent authority include the power to dismiss all executive-branch agency heads at will?

In Dissent is a recurring series by Anastasia Boden on Supreme Court dissents that have shaped (or reshaped) our country.

On Aug. 3, 1973, a single Supreme Court justice – working alone, far from Washington, D.C. – ordered the president of the United States to stop bombing Cambodia. He was swiftly overruled by the eight other justices, who, via hastily arranged phone calls, agreed to take immediate action to avoid a constitutional crisis. Justice William O. Douglas, known as “Wild Bill,” then issued a biting dissent – with perhaps the most unorthodox justice to ever have sat on the bench accusing the other eight of impropriety.