May 6, 2026 – As of May 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted 71 cases, heard 58 arguments, and rendered 29 decisions with 35 cases pending for the current October 2025 term. The Court completed oral arguments on this term’s merits docket on April 29.

Five cases remain pending on the interim docket with 40 cases decided this term on the interim docket.

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari on nine cases for the next term beginning in October.

Major Decisions in April

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport (April 29, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that First Choice established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights sufficient to confer Article III standing.

First Choice filed suit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 seeking to prevent the New Jersey Attorney General from enforcing document demands that would have revealed its donors, arguing that the demand for donor information violated its First Amendment rights. The district court denied First Choice’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed its complaint, holding that the group failed to state a justiciable claim as a matter of law because, absent any state court order compelling production, First Choice had yet to suffer an injury from the subpoena; the Third Circuit affirmed.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Louisiana v. Callais (April 29, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, the Supreme Court affirmed 6-3, holding that because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8. The map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

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

Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (April 22, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, holding that the text, structure, and context of 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b)(1), which sets a 30-day deadline for removing a case from state to federal court, are inconsistent with equitable tolling. Enbridge’s removal of this case to federal court, therefore, was untimely. As described last month in SCOTUS Watch, this case is only one of the legal challenges Enbridge faces for operating its “Line 5” crude-oil pipeline through Wisconsin and Michigan.

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (April 17, 2026)

On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed 8-0, holding that Chevron has plausibly alleged a close relationship between its challenged crude-oil production that fueled military aviation during World War II and the performance of its federal avgas refining duties – not a tenuous, remote, or peripheral one – and has therefore satisfied the “relating to” requirement of the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1442(a)(1). Federal jurisdiction is appropriate.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., took no part in the decision of the case.

Featured April Oral Argument

Chatrie v. U.S. (argued April 27, 2026)

Okello Chatrie is challenging under the Fourth Amendment a geofence warrant used to arrest him in a robbery of a federal credit union near Richmond, Virginia.

A geofence warrant involves three specific requests. Police served a warrant on Google to provide Location History data of cell phone users near the credit union about the time of the robbery.

From this information, the government asked Google for additional information involving nine accounts located near the credit union during the relevant two-hour period.

That information served to narrow the police request for names and additional information about three accounts, including Chatrie’s.

Police searched Chatrie’s residences, where they found stolen cash with bands signed by the victim bank teller present at the robbery, a gun, and demand notes such as used in the robbery.

Although the district court didn’t believe probable cause and particularity sufficient under the Fourth Amendment, it held that the police acted in good faith, allowing the evidence.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, meeting as a panel and later en banc, refused to suppress evidence gained from the geofence warrant, although the issue split the appellate court.

As reported by Amy Howe in SCOTUSblog, Chatrie’s lawyer argued that Chatrie had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data “because police did not have ‘probable cause to search the virtual private papers of every single person within the geofence merely because of their proximity to the crime.’”

The government argued the data received was different than “other digital information like email and photos.” The data was just as public as Chatrie using his cell phone at the credit union.

While some justices doubted Chatrie could claim privacy when allowing Google to have his location information, the decision may not make much of a difference. Google has announced it will store the information on the device instead of its database, and the warrant could be held to be made in good faith.

That’s what Howe said: “Some justices broached the possibility of a relatively narrow ruling that would help to clarify what warrants must include. [Justice Sonia] Sotomayor, for example, suggested that the court could hold that the government needs ‘a warrant, it has to be particular as to time, place … and it has to explain the reasons why those limitations are reasonable.’ Such a ruling, Sotomayor said, might have ‘value for the dispute that’s going on around the country and between and among judges even on this Court.’” – Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog.

As recently as April 15, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a geofence warrant was unconstitutional under the Minnesota Constitution, which “does not provide the government unrestricted access to a person’s location data stored by Google and that the warrant here failed to satisfy the particularity requirement.”