The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Wednesday, Nov. 12, in two back-to-back cases posing basic questions about the breadth of the compassionate-release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), that governs a type of sentence reduction for federal prisoners. The compassionate-release statute dates back to the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and allows a court to grant a sentence reduction when a defendant presents “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for doing so and satisfies criteria specified by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

The Supreme Court on Monday appeared unsympathetic to the plight of a Louisiana man who is suing prison officials who shaved his dreadlocks despite a federal appeals court ruling that established his right to keep them. After nearly two hours of oral argument, a majority of the justices seemed to agree that a federal law intended to protect the religious rights of prisoners does not allow Damon Landor to sue the prison officials in their personal capacities for money damages.

Setting the stage for a major ruling on election law, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether federal law requires ballots to be not only cast by voters but also received by election officials by Election Day. As part of the list of orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, the court took up Watson v. Republican National Committee, a challenge by the Republican National Committee and others to a Mississippi law (as well as similar laws in 30 other states and the District of Columbia) that allow mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are received within five business days after Election Day.

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.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to revive President Donald Trump’s attempt to narrow access to birthright citizenship. As the justices consider the administration’s request, three important briefs submitted to the court hint at an even more significant departure from the broad access to citizenship that has defined U.S. law since the late 19th century. The Justice Department’s petition requesting review, backed up by an amicus brief submitted by Republican members of the House of Representatives and another by Republican Senators, suggest that the Trump administration may be preparing to deny U.S. citizenship to children whose parents are U.S. citizens if the parents, or the children, are also citizens of another country.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Damon Landor. Landor is a Louisiana man who grew long dreadlocks for religious reasons. In 2020, prison officials forcibly shaved his head even after he showed them a copy of a federal appeals court ruling affirming his right to keep the dreadlocks. The justices will now decide whether Landor can try to recover money damages from those officials.

The federal law at the center of the case is known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Enacted 25 years ago, it applies to state prisons that receive federal funding (among other places), and bars the government from imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the imposition is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. It also allows individuals to bring suits against the government and government officials for violations of the law, for “appropriate relief.”