{"id":77940,"date":"2026-08-26T12:22:53","date_gmt":"2026-08-26T16:22:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/?p=77940"},"modified":"2026-08-26T12:22:53","modified_gmt":"2026-08-26T16:22:53","slug":"supreme-court-orders-docket-criminal-law-77940","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/supreme-court-orders-docket-criminal-law-77940\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court’s Orders Docket Reveals 23 Criminal Law Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court\u2019s 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 \u201cOrders docket.\u201d 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 \u2014 and what it might do next.<\/p>\n

What Is the Supreme Court\u2019s Orders Docket?<\/h2>\n

The Supreme Court<\/a> divides its official website for writings by the justices into two main parts: \u201cOpinions of the Court<\/a>aaa\u201d and \u201cOpinions Relating to Orders<\/a>.\u201d (The Court also<\/a> maintains a seldom-used section called \u201cIn-Chambers Opinions<\/a>,\u201d which has contained nothing at all since March 2024.) Contrary to public perception, there is no formal \u201cemergency\u201d or \u201cinterim\u201d docket in the Court\u2019s public presentation.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cOpinions of the Court<\/a>.\u201d The orders docket publishes basically everything else \u2014 including, but not limited to, emergency stay applications. By the Editor\u2019s count, only nine of the 37 separate matters on this term\u2019s orders docket involved emergency stay applications, and almost half of those addressed emergency stays of executions in death penalty cases.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 23 of the 37 matters this term.<\/p>\n

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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n

One important nuance: the Court denies the vast majority of requests from litigants without any opinion at all \u2014 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 \u201cOrders\u201d lists on a different part of the Court\u2019s website.<\/p>\n

Why the Orders Docket Matters<\/h2>\n

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 \u2014 which continues until October 5, 2026 \u2014 there have been 37 separate matters with opinions on the \u201cRelating to Orders\u201d docket. Of these, 22 were dissents from denial of certiorari, and another seven were \u201cstatements\u201d regarding or concurring in such denials.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 including experienced potential Supreme Court petitioners \u2014 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\u2019s 10-page dissent from denial of certiorari in Khorrami v. Arizona<\/em> in 2022 identified the same legal question \u2014 whether the Constitution requires that serious criminal cases be tried by a jury of 12 \u2014 that will be given<\/a> full merits review in Kian v. Florida<\/em> this coming term. The motivation is sometimes explicit: as Gorsuch wrote in another dissent this term, \u201cI can only hope we will take up another case like [t]his soon.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some justices publish repeatedly on the orders docket, patrolling the borders of the Court\u2019s 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 \u2014 Roberts consistent with his \u201cno dissents\u201d approach, Barrett with her moderating, merits-focused approach.<\/p>\n

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: \u201cIn capital cases, we rarely intervene to preserve life. I cannot understand the Court\u2019s rush to extinguish it.\u201d When Jackson dissented from the Court\u2019s order in the Callais<\/em> voting rights case, Alito published his unrestrained reaction: \u201cbaseless and insulting,\u201d \u201cutterly irresponsible.\u201d Even as the Chief Justice has said recently that \u201cwe are not as much at each other\u2019s throats as you might think,\u201d individual opinions on the orders docket provide vivid counterpoints.<\/p>\n

23 Criminal Law Cases: Nuggets From the Orders Docket<\/h2>\n

As noted, at least 23 of the 37 cases involved criminal law issues. Eighteen were straight dissents from denial of certiorari; the rest were \u201cstatements\u201d 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 \u2014 Alito was a career federal prosecutor; Sotomayor, while serving briefly as a prosecutor, has been committed to civil rights. Their orders opinions \u201cpatrol\u201d the Court\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Here are five notable examples:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • In Smith v. Kind<\/em>, denying review of a lawsuit alleging inhumane prison conditions, Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Jackson, called out what she called the Court\u2019s \u201casymmetrical trend of declining to intervene\u201d when government officers are \u201cwrongly afford[ed]\u201d qualified immunity, \u201cbut unflinchingly summarily reversing when\u201d officers have been \u201cwrongly denied\u201d that protection.<\/li>\n
  • In Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana<\/em>, a civil matter granting a stay of the 5th Circuit\u2019s order addressing mifepristone distribution, Thomas and Alito dissented, suggesting that mailing mifepristone to Louisiana users can violate criminal laws.<\/li>\n
  • In United States v. Carter<\/em>, Alito, joined by Thomas, dissented from denial of the solicitor general\u2019s petition for review of a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d ruling in Washington D.C., which Alito said was race-based and created \u201cspecial rules for black persons.\u201d<\/li>\n
  • In Dershowitz v. CNN<\/em>, 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<\/em> for defamation. Criminal libel prosecutions could be stimulated if Sullivan<\/em> were overruled.<\/li>\n
  • In Thomas v. Humboldt County<\/em>, Gorsuch dissented from denial of review, urging that a 1916 precedent holding that the Seventh Amendment\u2019s civil jury trial right does not apply to states should be overruled, continuing his focus on jury trial rights.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Comprehensive List of Criminal Law Matters on the Orders Docket<\/h2>\n

    The following are the other criminal law matters (in reverse chronological order, with the criminal law element bolded):<\/p>\n

      \n
    • Jones v. United States<\/em>: Sotomayor concurred, urging lower courts to \u201cconsider carefully\u201d whether the miscarriage of justice principles in Hunter v. United States<\/em> should apply to waivers of collateral reviews of convictions<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    • Grayson v. United States<\/em>: Alito dissented from a GVR order in a murder prosecution where the government conceded error in applying a \u201cclean hands exception\u201d to the federal wiretapping<\/strong> statute.<\/li>\n
    • Salda\u00f1o v. Texas<\/em>: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented from denial of review in a death penalty case where Texas agreed that evidence of intellectual disability<\/strong> should be reviewed but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined.<\/li>\n
    • Alabama v. Powell<\/em>: 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\u2019s right not to testify<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    • Clark v. Mississippi<\/em>: Sotomayor, while agreeing with denial of review, addressed the problematic Batson<\/em> standard applied to an ineffective assistance of counsel<\/strong> claim.<\/li>\n
    • Lairy v. United States<\/em>: Sotomayor concurred, noting the government represented that it has a policy of waiving statute of limitations defenses<\/strong> when a person has been sentenced above the statutory maximum.<\/li>\n
    • Guerrero v. Busby<\/em>: Jackson wrote to declaim the Court\u2019s \u201crush to extinguish\u201d life when denying stays of execution<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    • Castro v. Guevara<\/em>: Sotomayor concurred, noting a circuit split in the standard of review for findings under the international child abduction convention.<\/li>\n
    • Skinner v. Louisiana<\/em>: Sotomayor, joined by Jackson, dissented at length from denial of review to Skinner, convicted of murder, while his codefendant\u2019s conviction was reversed for a Brady<\/em> exculpatory evidence<\/strong> violation. \u201cEqual justice under law\u201d is engraved on the Court\u2019s building, she wrote.<\/li>\n
    • Reed v. Goertz<\/em>: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented where Texas refused to DNA test<\/strong> possibly exculpatory evidence.<\/li>\n
    • Villarreal v. Alaniz<\/em>: Another qualified immunity<\/strong> case, regarding the arrest of a \u201ccitizen journalist\u201d in Laredo.<\/li>\n
    • Burnett v. United States<\/em>: Gorsuch dissented on whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury trial under a reasonable doubt standard for re-imprisonment for violating federal supervised release.<\/li>\n
    • Johnson v. High Desert State Prison<\/em>: Sotomayor, joined by Jackson, dissented on whether indigent prisoners<\/strong> may split the filing fee when filing a single lawsuit.<\/li>\n
    • Trotter v. Florida<\/em>: Sotomayor concurred in denial of a stay but criticized Florida\u2019s execution protocols and secrecy.<\/li>\n
    • Howell v. Indiana<\/em>: Jackson dissented from issuance of a \u201cvexatious litigant\u201d order against an incarcerated person<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    • Trump v. Illinois<\/em> (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<\/strong>. Kavanaugh concurred; Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.<\/li>\n
    • Davenport v. United States<\/em>: Sotomayor concurred, noting that the district judge was \u201cmistaken\u201d in saying federal courts are \u201cprohibited from giving a definition of reasonable doubt<\/strong>\u201d to juries.<\/li>\n
    • Hutson v. United States<\/em>: Alito, joined by Thomas (and Gorsuch), dissented from denial to \u201cterminate the longstanding and unlawful prison-building order<\/strong>.\u201d<\/li>\n
    • Boyd v. Hamm<\/em>: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented from denial of a stay of execution regarding Alabama\u2019s nitrogen hypoxia method. Boyd was executed that day, with reports of \u201cviolent thrashing.\u201d<\/li>\n
    • Crawford v. Mississippi<\/em>: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented where lawyers conceded guilt despite Crawford\u2019s instructions not to. Crawford was executed the same day.<\/li>\n
    • Humphreys v. Emmons<\/em>: Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented regarding a \u201cno-impeachment rule\u201d applied to a death penalty case infected by \u201cextreme juror misconduct<\/strong>.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Correction to Prior Reporting<\/h2>\n

      In a July overview of the Court\u2019s criminal law term, the Editor wrote that \u201cChief Justice Roberts was part of the majority in all 11 pro-defense\u201d decisions. The correct division is actually 10 and one \u2014 in Hamm v. Smith<\/em>, there was no opinion for the Court; the case was dismissed as improvidently granted. Roberts joined Alito\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

      For practitioners and court watchers, the orders docket is not a mere appendage to the Court\u2019s work \u2014 it is a window into the justices\u2019 evolving priorities, their frustrations, and the legal questions they believe deserve the nation\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      The Supreme Court\u2019s 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 \u201cOrders docket.\u201d In the October 2025 Term alone, that docket contains 37 separate matters with written opinions, and of those, at least 23 involve […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":82657,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cards.overcentral.com\/cards\/en\/77940.png","fifu_image_alt":"Supreme Court's Orders Docket Reveals 23 Criminal Law Cases","footnotes":""},"categories":[40657],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-77940","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-legal"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cards.overcentral.com\/cards\/en\/77940.png","fifu_image_alt":"Supreme Court's Orders Docket Reveals 23 Criminal Law Cases","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77940","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77940"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77940\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/82657"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77940"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77940"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/overcentral.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77940"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}