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.

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).