In Rico v. United States, the Supreme Court will consider whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine – the legal principle that a criminal defendant should not receive credit toward his sentence for time spent as a fugitive – applies when a defendant absconds from (that is, flees from or evades) supervised release, thereby preventing the term of supervision from expiring while the defendant is on the lam. Although fugitive status can be evocative in popular culture, as illustrated by the FBI’s ten most wanted list launched in March 1950, the circumstances of fugitives from supervised release tend to revolve around the sad, gritty facts of recidivism and, as illustrated by Isabel Rico’s case, drug addiction.   

Updated on Oct. 29 at 12:36 p.m.

Next Monday’s argument in Hencely v Fluor Corporation asks the justices to consider the extent to which military contractors can be held liable in tort suits – that is, a lawsuit seeking damages for harm caused by someone else’s wrongful actions or negligence – brought under state law. The lower courts in this case protected the contractor, but it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will agree.

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

While all media eyes will be on the tariff cases set for oral argument on Nov. 5, the fact is that over half of the 11 cases set for the two-week November sitting are criminal-and-related cases. (Because a few cases have been consolidated, two each on different days, you might say only nine separate merits cases are at issue. And don’t forget my perspective that the justices have the “easiest job” in the judiciary: for November, they have five days of oral argument over only two weeks, and this is normally no more than three hours of argument each day – then they have “off” until Dec. 1.) Here is a brief summary of some things to listen for (no video allowed) in cases of interest to criminal practitioners.

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

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s law prohibiting licensed mental-health professionals from engaging in “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. To justify the law, Colorado points to a consensus among “[e]very major professional healthcare association in the country” that such therapy “is not just ineffective and unnecessary, but can be harmful, especially to minors.” One of the central issues in the case is thus how courts should treat claims of “medical consensus” in free speech cases. At the oral argument on Oct. 6, Justice Samuel Alito referenced Buck v. Bell, an infamous 1927 case in which the court relied on medical opinion to uphold a Virginia law allowing the sterilization of the “feeble minded.”

Although some commentators criticized Alito’s comments, his concerns were entirely justified. Buck is relevant not as an ethical analogy to Colorado’s law, but as a historical illustration that constitutional rights are at risk when judicial scrutiny rises and falls with professional consensus.

Updated on Oct. 28 at 9:16 p.m.

Since June, President Donald Trump has ordered several National Guard deployments within the United States, often against the wishes of the Democratic governors of the states where troops are being sent. The resulting legal battles have put a spotlight on the president’s authority to federalize troops and use them domestically. How far, exactly, does this power extend?