The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon added four new cases to its argument docket for the 2025-26 term. In a brief list of orders from the justices’ private conference earlier in the day, the court agreed to weigh in on one of the challenges to President Donald Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship (covered in a separate story).

The justices will be treading on familiar ground during next week’s argument in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v Saba Capital Master Fund, to take place on Wednesday, Dec. 10. Like many cases the court has heard in the last decade, this one asks the justices to consider whether the federal courts should recognize a federal statute as implying a private right of action (that is, providing the ability for private parties to sue) when the words of the statute do not explicitly authorize it.

Nearly a quarter-century ago, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Federal Republican Campaign Committee to the constitutionality of limits on the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for office. On Tuesday, Dec. 9, the justices will hear oral arguments in a case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, asking them to strike down the coordinated party expenditure limits and, if necessary, overrule that 2001 decision.

Immigration Matters is a recurring series by César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández that analyzes the court’s immigration docket, highlighting emerging legal questions about new policy and enforcement practices.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Receiving asylum in the United States is complicated, but, traditionally, beginning the application process has been straightforward. A migrant had to travel to the United States and inform an immigration official that they came in search of safe harbor. Starting in the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency, the federal government tried to control the number of asylum applications that border officers received by stopping migrants from reaching United States territory. On Nov. 17, the Supreme Court agreed to review a federal appellate court decision, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, that prohibits the government from blocking migrants before they cross the nation’s threshold. If the court sides with the government, however, it may inadvertently incentivize attempts to circumvent border-enforcement tactics.

On Wednesday, Dec. 3, the Supreme Court heard argument in Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, and considered the tension between the broad language and potentially narrower purpose of a ruling from three decades ago on whether an individual convicted of violating a law can later challenge the law as unconstitutional and seek to protect him or herself from its future enforcement.