Cases and Controversies is a recurring series by Carolyn Shapiro, primarily focusing on the effects of the Supreme Court’s rulings, opinions, and procedures on the law, on other institutions, and on our constitutional democracy more generally.

In the first weeks of 2026, we’ve seen two U.S. citizens shot and killed by federal Department of Homeland Security agents in Minneapolis. Anyone who follows the news has seen numerous videos and pictures of DHS agents knocking people to the ground, pulling them out of cars, spraying them directly in the face with pepper spray or other chemicals, arresting them with no warrants, demanding proof of citizenship from people of color (and sometimes then rejecting it), and so on. I detailed some of this conduct in late December. It has not abated.

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

In the 2022 case of New York State Rifle Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry firearms in public. It further held that to justify a restriction on firearm-related conduct the government must show that the restriction is consistent with the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

In 2025, the United States saw a surge in executions after a period of decline. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 47 people were put to death in 11 states, the highest annual execution total since 2009.

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

By the middle of January of this term, the Supreme Court had issued seven decisions in argued cases. For casual observers, this might seem unremarkable. But anyone tracking the court’s recent patterns knows that something unusual is happening: the 2025-26 term represents a striking departure from a recent trend that had seen early decisions nearly vanish from the court’s calendar.

Civil Rights and Wrongs is a recurring series by Daniel Harawa covering criminal justice and civil rights cases before the court.

On Jan. 20, in what would be an otherwise unremarkable order, the Supreme Court dismissed Danny Howell’s petition for review, denying his request to proceed “in forma pauperis” – a request to forgo having to pay the court’s filing fees and comply with the court’s printing requirements because he is financially unable to do so. But the court did not just deny Howell’s request and dismiss his petition. It went far further, barring Howell from filing any future noncriminal petitions in forma pauperis, “Martin-izing” him.