Supreme Court Orders Docket Reveals 23 Criminal Law Cases

The Supreme Court’s website is not what most people think it is. Beyond the high-profile merits decisions that make headlines, there exists a quieter but crucial repository of judicial activity: the “Orders docket.” In the October 2025 Term alone, that docket contains 37 separate matters with written opinions, and of those, at least 23 involve criminal law issues. Understanding this docket is essential for anyone who wants a complete picture of how the Court operates — and what it might do next.

Summary

What Is the Supreme Court’s Orders Docket?

The Supreme Court divides its official website for writings by the justices into two main parts: “Opinions of the Courtaaa” and “Opinions Relating to Orders.” (The Court also maintains a seldom-used section called “In-Chambers Opinions,” which has contained nothing at all since March 2024.) Contrary to public perception, there is no formal “emergency” or “interim” docket in the Court’s public presentation.

Twenty-six years ago, the Court established its first official website. In 2010, when it took over administration from the Government Printing Office, it divided published opinions into these two categories. This structure survived a 2017 website reorganization and remains the same today. Merits decisions in argued or summary cases belong to “Opinions of the Court.” The orders docket publishes basically everything else — including, but not limited to, emergency stay applications. By the Editor’s count, only nine of the 37 separate matters on this term’s orders docket involved emergency stay applications, and almost half of those addressed emergency stays of executions in death penalty cases.

The bulk of the orders docket consists of opinions written by individual justices explaining why they dissent from (or agree with) orders denying review of a case by the full Court. Thus, opinions in 28 of the 37 matters were dissents from denial or statements regarding denial of certiorari petitions. In death penalty cases, a justice will often address both the denial of review and the denial of a stay of execution in a single opinion. It is in these dissents-from-denial opinions that criminal law issues are most frequently addressed — 23 of the 37 matters this term.

These opinions differ significantly from merits opinions. They are issued without oral argument or full briefing, usually on a faster timeline. They represent individual justices’ views rather than a majority of the Court. They carry less precedential weight, although that distinction has recently broken down informally. Nevertheless, they often express firm views about significant legal questions.

One important nuance: the Court denies the vast majority of requests from litigants without any opinion at all — for example, the recent denial of a rehearing petition by President Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case. Such silent denials are not found on the orders docket; they appear in the weekly “Orders” lists on a different part of the Court’s website.

Why the Orders Docket Matters

As the Editor has written previously, a full picture of what the justices do in a term requires attention to both the orders docket and the merits decisions. Particularly important are opinions explaining why a justice or justices dissent from an order denying review. For the October 2025 Term — which continues until October 5, 2026 — there have been 37 separate matters with opinions on the “Relating to Orders” docket. Of these, 22 were dissents from denial of certiorari, and another seven were “statements” regarding or concurring in such denials.

Expert Court watchers have long examined dissents from denial as a way of understanding, and presaging, what issues the full Court may soon choose to examine. When the full Court has denied review, an individual justice may publish a dissent to signal to Court observers — including experienced potential Supreme Court petitioners — legal issues one or more justices think are worthy of future review. Such dissents not infrequently blossom into later merits review. For instance, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s 10-page dissent from denial of certiorari in Khorrami v. Arizona in 2022 identified the same legal question — whether the Constitution requires that serious criminal cases be tried by a jury of 12 — that will be given full merits review in Kian v. Florida this coming term. The motivation is sometimes explicit: as Gorsuch wrote in another dissent this term, “I can only hope we will take up another case like [t]his soon.”

Some justices publish repeatedly on the orders docket, patrolling the borders of the Court’s work. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was by far the busiest this term, publishing in 15 different cases; at the other end, Justice Samuel Alito published in five and Justice Clarence Thomas in four. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett published not at all — Roberts consistent with his “no dissents” approach, Barrett with her moderating, merits-focused approach.

These individual opinions also offer insights into judicial style and temperament. When the full Court denied a stay of execution regarding Edward Lee Busby, an intellectually disabled person, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: “In capital cases, we rarely intervene to preserve life. I cannot understand the Court’s rush to extinguish it.” When Jackson dissented from the Court’s order in the Callais voting rights case, Alito published his unrestrained reaction: “baseless and insulting,” “utterly irresponsible.” Even as the Chief Justice has said recently that “we are not as much at each other’s throats as you might think,” individual opinions on the orders docket provide vivid counterpoints.

23 Criminal Law Cases: Nuggets From the Orders Docket

As noted, at least 23 of the 37 cases involved criminal law issues. Eighteen were straight dissents from denial of certiorari; the rest were “statements” explaining disagreement on the merits but acquiescing in the denial for other reasons. Alito and Sotomayor appear to pay the most attention to criminal law issues, accounting for opinions in 18 of these matters. Their opinions tend to pull in opposite directions — Alito was a career federal prosecutor; Sotomayor, while serving briefly as a prosecutor, has been committed to civil rights. Their orders opinions “patrol” the Court’s criminal law denial decisions, urging further review in opposite directions. Seven matters involved stays of execution in death penalty cases; Sotomayor wrote in all but one of those.

Here are five notable examples:

In Smith v. Kind, denying review of a lawsuit alleging inhumane prison conditions, Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Jackson, called out what she called the Court’s “asymmetrical trend of declining to intervene” when government officers are “wrongly afford[ed]” qualified immunity, “but unflinchingly summarily reversing when” officers have been “wrongly denied” that protection.
In Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana, a civil matter granting a stay of the 5th Circuit’s order addressing mifepristone distribution, Thomas and Alito dissented, suggesting that mailing mifepristone to Louisiana users can violate criminal laws.
In United States v. Carter, Alito, joined by Thomas, dissented from denial of the solicitor general’s petition for review of a “reasonable suspicion” ruling in Washington D.C., which Alito said was race-based and created “special rules for black persons.”
In Dershowitz v. CNN, a civil matter with criminal law implications, Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, repeated his calls to review and reverse the actual malice standard of New York Times v. Sullivan for defamation. Criminal libel prosecutions could be stimulated if Sullivan were overruled.
In Thomas v. Humboldt County, Gorsuch dissented from denial of review, urging that a 1916 precedent holding that the Seventh Amendment’s civil jury trial right does not apply to states should be overruled, continuing his focus on jury trial rights.

Comprehensive List of Criminal Law Matters on the Orders Docket

The following are the other criminal law matters (in reverse chronological order, with the criminal law element bolded):

Jones v. United States: Sotomayor concurred, urging lower courts to “consider carefully” whether the miscarriage of justice principles in Hunter v. United States should apply to waivers of collateral reviews of convictions.
Grayson v. United States: Alito dissented from a GVR order in a murder prosecution where the government conceded error in applying a “clean hands exception” to the federal wiretapping statute.
Saldaño v. Texas: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented from denial of review in a death penalty case where Texas agreed that evidence of intellectual disability should be reviewed but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined.
Alabama v. Powell: Alito, joined by Thomas, dissented from denial of review in a murder case where the Alabama appeals court ruled that the prosecutor had improperly commented on the defendant’s right not to testify.
Clark v. Mississippi: Sotomayor, while agreeing with denial of review, addressed the problematic Batson standard applied to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Lairy v. United States: Sotomayor concurred, noting the government represented that it has a policy of waiving statute of limitations defenses when a person has been sentenced above the statutory maximum.
Guerrero v. Busby: Jackson wrote to declaim the Court’s “rush to extinguish” life when denying stays of execution.
Castro v. Guevara: Sotomayor concurred, noting a circuit split in the standard of review for findings under the international child abduction convention.
Skinner v. Louisiana: Sotomayor, joined by Jackson, dissented at length from denial of review to Skinner, convicted of murder, while his codefendant’s conviction was reversed for a Brady exculpatory evidence violation. “Equal justice under law” is engraved on the Court’s building, she wrote.
Reed v. Goertz: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented where Texas refused to DNA test possibly exculpatory evidence.
Villarreal v. Alaniz: Another qualified immunity case, regarding the arrest of a “citizen journalist” in Laredo.
Burnett v. United States: Gorsuch dissented on whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury trial under a reasonable doubt standard for re-imprisonment for violating federal supervised release.
Johnson v. High Desert State Prison: Sotomayor, joined by Jackson, dissented on whether indigent prisoners may split the filing fee when filing a single lawsuit.
Trotter v. Florida: Sotomayor concurred in denial of a stay but criticized Florida’s execution protocols and secrecy.
Howell v. Indiana: Jackson dissented from issuance of a “vexatious litigant” order against an incarcerated person.
Trump v. Illinois (quasi-criminal): The Court denied a stay of a lower court order ruling that National Guard troops may not be deployed unless U.S. military forces are unable to execute federal laws. Kavanaugh concurred; Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.
Davenport v. United States: Sotomayor concurred, noting that the district judge was “mistaken” in saying federal courts are “prohibited from giving a definition of reasonable doubt” to juries.
Hutson v. United States: Alito, joined by Thomas (and Gorsuch), dissented from denial to “terminate the longstanding and unlawful prison-building order.”
Boyd v. Hamm: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented from denial of a stay of execution regarding Alabama’s nitrogen hypoxia method. Boyd was executed that day, with reports of “violent thrashing.”
Crawford v. Mississippi: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented where lawyers conceded guilt despite Crawford’s instructions not to. Crawford was executed the same day.
Humphreys v. Emmons: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented regarding a “no-impeachment rule” applied to a death penalty case infected by “extreme juror misconduct.”

Correction to Prior Reporting

In a July overview of the Court’s criminal law term, the Editor wrote that “Chief Justice Roberts was part of the majority in all 11 pro-defense” decisions. The correct division is actually 10 and one — in Hamm v. Smith, there was no opinion for the Court; the case was dismissed as improvidently granted. Roberts joined Alito’s dissent. However, the point remains: in all pro-defense criminal law decisions where an opinion was assigned (10 cases), Roberts was in the majority and did the assigning.

For practitioners and court watchers, the orders docket is not a mere appendage to the Court’s work — it is a window into the justices’ evolving priorities, their frustrations, and the legal questions they believe deserve the nation’s highest attention. As the October 2025 Term continues and the Court prepares to hear new cases, the dissents-from-denial published today may well become the cert grants of tomorrow. Ignoring the orders docket means missing half the story.