The Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon turned down a request from an Alabama inmate to block his execution, which is scheduled for today. In an unsigned order, the justices denied Anthony Boyd’s plea to put his execution on hold and to decide whether executing him by nitrogen hypoxia would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Boyd had asked to be executed by a firing squad instead. As is customary in cases involving requests for emergency relief, the court did not provide any explanation for its decision.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the court’s decision to allow the execution to go forward. In a nine-page opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor wrote that “Boyd asks for the barest form of mercy: to die by firing squad, which would kill him in seconds, rather than by a torturous suffocation lasting up to four minutes. The Constitution would grant him that grace. My colleagues do not.” 

The Supreme Court is done hearing argument for October, but that does not mean it’s done making major rulings. There are several applications awaiting action on the court’s interim docket, including the Trump administration’s request to be allowed to federalize and deploy the National Guard within Illinois and its attempt to change the current rules for sex markers on passports.  

The court is scheduled to consider whether to hear Kim Davis’ challenge to same-sex marriage at their private conference on Friday, Nov. 7. As a general practice, the court does not grant review without considering a case at at least two consecutive conferences; this is the first conference in which Davis’ challenge will be considered. If the justices deny review, however, that announcement could come as soon as Monday, Nov. 10.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff, especially when it comes to the NBA.

For court fans, October is the sweetest month. That’s true whether you like lacing up wingtips for a pretrial conference or high tops for a pickup basketball game. At the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, the 2025-26 term already has begun. Meanwhile, two high-octane games just opened the National Basketball Association regular season on Tuesday, Oct. 21, including one with the defending champion Oklahoma City Thunder (they beat the Houston Rockets in double overtime).

Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean for the law, for lawyers and lower courts, and for people’s lives.

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

When is it ever appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide that a federal law is unconstitutional because it is no longer needed?

This question arose during the oral arguments on Oct. 15 in Louisiana v. Callais, involving the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election standards and practices that have a discriminatory effect against minority voters. And it was at the heart of the court’s decision over a decade ago in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down another crucial part of the Voting Rights Act that required jurisdictions with a history of race discrimination in voting to obtain federal preapproval before making significant changes to their election systems. But it is not obvious why it is the court’s job to decide when a problem is over, and it is even less clear how the court should go about making such an inquiry.