On Tuesday, Nov. 4, in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited Inc. v. Burton, the Supreme Court will consider a disagreement among the federal courts of appeals over whether there is a time limit for setting aside a judgment as void for lack of personal jurisdiction – that is, because the trial court did not have the authority to exercise power over the litigant.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon asked the litigants in the challenge to President Donald Trump’s effort to deploy the National Guard to Illinois to file supplemental briefs addressing the interpretation of the law on which Trump relied in his Oct. 4 memorandum calling up the National Guard.

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.

Updated on Oct. 31 at 6:25 p.m.

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.