June 3, 2026 – As of June 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted 73 cases, heard 58 arguments, and rendered 40 decisions with 26 cases pending for the current October 2025 term.

Seven cases remain pending on the interim docket with 51 cases decided this term on the interim docket.

Major Decisions in May

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (May 14, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Supreme Court held that a claim that one company negligently hired another to transport goods is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), which preempts state laws related to the prices, routes, and services of the trucking industry. Even under the FAAAA, States retain authority to regulate safety “with respect to motor vehicles” under the Act. The decision reversed the lower appeals court’s decision.

BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined.

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (May 21, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Supreme Court held that the cruise lines’ use of the docks is sufficient to establish that they used “property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government.”

Havana Docks is not required to establish that the cruise lines trafficked in Havana Dock’s property interest. The Cuban government granted a property interest to Havana Docks in 1928 to develop and operate the docks at the Port of Havana. The interest was to expire in 2004, but the Communist Cuban government confiscated the property in 1959. The decision reversed (8-1) the lower appeals court decision.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KAVANAUGH, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges (May 26, 2026)

On a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court unanimously granted the writ, reversed the Fourth Circuit judgment, and remanded for violating the party presentation principle.

The case involved an association of immigration judges challenging a policy by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which sets policies governing immigration courts.

The new policy required prior supervisory approval for public speeches by the immigration judges. The association argued the policy violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

Defendants argued that such challenges must proceed through the administrative review scheme established by the Civil Service Reform Act. Although the district court dismissed the case, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded based on an issue the parties had not raised.

The decision was per curiam with Thomas J., joined by Barrett, J., concurring.

Pitchford v. Cain (May 28, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied the clearly established precedents from Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, and unreasonably determined that Pitchford waived his opportunity to rebut the prosecutor’s asserted race-neutral reasons for the peremptory strikes of four Black prospective jurors.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.

Fernandez v. United States (May 28, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court affirmed 8-1, holding that a prisoner who collaterally attacks the validity of the prisoner's conviction must proceed through a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. section 2255, not under the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), because the supposed invalidity of a conviction is not among the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that justify compassionate release.

BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Rutherford v. United States (May 28, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the Supreme Court affirmed 6-3, holding that when Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive the resulting sentencing disparity cannot serve as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason that warrants a sentence reduction for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined.

Featured May Issue on the Interim Docket: Congressional Maps

The biggest issue on the interim docket in May, at least in number of cases, was whether Alabama must use a Congressional district map that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama found racially discriminatory.

Alabama’s Congressional maps have been under judicial scrutiny since 2021 and have a long procedural history. The U.S. Supreme Court rendered its first decisions on them in 2023.

In April, the Supreme Court decided 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, leaving no compelling interest justifying the state’s use of race in creating SB8.

On May 4, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 interim docket decision, granted the winning party’s petition to forward the Callais judgment immediately instead of allowing the standard 32 days after entry of judgment for potential rehearing, speeding its applicability.

Based on Callais, the Supreme Court on May 11 held 6-3 to vacate the district court decisions, Allen v. Caster, Allen v. Singleton, and Allen v. Milligan, which enjoined Alabama’s 2023 Redistricting Plan, and remanded for further consideration under Callais. Justice Sonya Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Jackson, dissented.

On May 26, the district court in Singleton v. Allen and Milligan v. Allen, both available at 2026 WL 1469518, “carefully reviewed the extensive evidentiary record in these cases with fresh eyes in light of Callais. After that exacting review, we conclude that a preliminary injunction must issue.”

“Callais clarified that Section Two [of the Voting Rights Act] ‘imposes liability only when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.’” The new precedent merely updates the existing analytical framework, the district court explained.

According to the district court, “our previous review of the undisputed evidence left us in no doubt that Alabama’s legislatively enacted plan (the ‘2023 Plan’) intentionally discriminated based on race in violation of the Constitution.”

The decision would not harm 2026 primary and general elections, but using the new maps would upset existing voter assignments, the district court concluded.

The panel contained two judges appointed by President Donald Trump and one by President Bill Clinton, explained Amy Howe in SCOTUSblog.

A related decision, Caster v. Allen, available at 2026 WI 1487869, (N.D. Ala. May 26, 2026) adopted Singleton’s analysis.

The fresh district court decisions now sit on the interim docket because petitioners claim that Callais justifies their reversal.

As Howe summarized the argument for stopping the district court, “‘Callais,’ the state contended, ‘vindicates Alabama’s position on the lawfulness of the 2023 Plan, yet the district court decided in one week that Callais changed nothing.’

“The district court,” Alabama Solicitor General A. Barrett Bowdre stressed, “did not require the challengers to offer alternative maps that would achieve Alabama’s goals while still maintaining two majority-Black districts, as the Supreme Court suggested it should have, and ‘[i]t did not matter to the district court that drawing an additional race-based district came at the cost of sacrificing communities of interest and pairing incumbents.’

“‘Worse,’ Bowdre concluded, the district court’s conclusion that the state intentionally violated the Constitution rests on the idea ‘that Alabama intentionally discriminated by refusing to intentionally discriminate.’”

This issue comes while state legislatures have been considering, and some choosing, to make new Congressional maps for the 2026 midterm elections.

One state has already received a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court halted Virginia’s new maps in deciding on the interim docket case, Scott v. McDougle, on May 15.