Blockbuster Criminal Cases Looming in the Supreme Court Term — Why the Court Should Hear More

The Supreme Court's upcoming term features a heavy slate of criminal-law and closely related cases that will shape the national landscape on everything from firearms and jury structure to forfeiture and remedies against federal officials. By my count, 11 of the 25 cases already granted for review touch on criminal law or adjacent doctrines — about 40% of the current docket — and more criminal matters are likely after the Court's Sept. 28 conference.

The Court Could—and Should—Resolve More Circuit Splits Involving Criminal Law

Last month the Congressional Research Service released a 68-page report cataloguing nearly 100 inter-circuit disagreements in 2025. The largest single category (28 disputes) concerns criminal law and procedure, far outstripping the next category, civil procedure. Under Rule 10(a) and (b) and the Constitution’s Article III design, the Supreme Court exists to resolve important federal splits and provide national uniformity. Given the Court’s capacity (Chief Justice Roberts has said it could hear roughly 100 cases without undue strain) and the relatively modest caseload it has recently shouldered, prioritizing certiorari grants to resolve criminal-law splits is both doctrinally and practically sound.

Key Criminal And Related Grants To Watch

The calendar already lists arguments across October, November and early December. Below are concise, clarified descriptions of the most consequential criminal-related cases now set for the term. I lead with the three biggest matters and then summarize the remainder in scheduled order. Note that Viramontes is consolidated with Grant v. Higgins.

Viramontes v. Cook County (Dec. 2; consolidated with Grant v. Higgins)

Several states and localities ban possession of firearms labeled as "assault weapons," a category that includes semi-automatic rifles such as the AR‑15. Petitioners challenge categorical bans on such semi-automatic weapons under the Second Amendment. The case raises a core doctrinal question left open by District of Columbia v. Heller: should protected arms be limited to those "in common use at the time" the Amendment was adopted (1791), or may the Court test protection by whether weapons are "in common use" today? The Solicitor General has asked to join oral argument; the one-hour slot is likely to run longer, given the case’s national significance and doctrinal stakes.

Kian v. Florida (Unscheduled)

This case asks whether the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a criminal jury trial requires twelve jurors rather than six. Reversing the 1970 precedent Williams v. Florida would mean overruling a long-standing rule that upheld six-member juries; supporters of reversal draw on historical evidence and recent doctrinal trends (including Ramos v. Louisiana) to argue that the framers implicitly understood a jury to be twelve persons. The question is straightforward in its framing but potentially transformative for criminal procedure nationwide.

Jouppi v. Alaska (Dec. 1)

At first blush, this case involves a curious fact pattern: the State seized a pilot’s airplane after determining it had been used to transport a small quantity of alcohol (a six-pack of beer). The broader constitutional question is weighty: does the Eighth Amendment’s ban on "excessive fines" require courts to assess forfeitures by reference to the particular defendant and the specific offense or by reference to the general gravity of the class of offenses? The Court’s decision will provide important guidance on criminal forfeiture, a practice that affects thousands of cases and generates substantial government revenue.

Other Notable Criminal-Oriented Grants

Beaird v. United States (Oct. 13)

Does federal jurisprudence still defer to commentary issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission when that commentary appears to conflict with an unambiguous Sentencing Guideline? The Court framed the question concisely: is Stinson v. United States (1993), which required deference, still correct? The Solicitor General ultimately sided with the defendant, making this a key administrative-law and sentencing-guidance dispute.

Maxwell v. Dinis (Nov. 2)

Can a request for transfer to a halfway house be brought in a federal habeas corpus petition? The Fifth Circuit said no, treating a halfway-house transfer as not amounting to the sort of "release" that habeas traditionally protects. The Solicitor General described the Fifth Circuit’s position as inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and the case raises important procedural questions about habeas relief for custodial conditions and placement.

Younge v. Fulton County (Nov. 2)

In a civil-procedure dispute arising from the firing of a supervising county prosecutor, the Eleventh Circuit allowed a late-asserted affirmative defense to stand if the plaintiff was not prejudiced. Other circuits reach different results; the Court will resolve whether such late defenses are permissible as a basis for summary judgment despite Rule 16 scheduling deadlines.

Guerrero v. Johnson (Nov. 4)

This death-penalty habeas case raises technical but consequential questions about "new rules" of constitutional law and their retroactive application under the habeas statute — specifically, what "previously unavailable" means in that context. The Fifth Circuit adopted a narrow interpretation the Solicitor General has called unsound, and the case implicates how federal courts treat newly articulated legal rules in successive habeas petitions.

Nielsen v. Watanabe (Nov. 9)

Does the Court overrule Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents (1971), which recognized an implied damages remedy for certain federal constitutional violations? The Court has narrowed Bivens in subsequent decisions, and Justice Gorsuch has called it a "misstep." This case involves an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim by a federal prison paramedic; whether Bivens survives will determine whether private damages remedies remain available against federal officers in constitutional-violation cases.

Wassily v. Blanch (Nov. 30)

Does the statutory phrase "any alien granted asylum" permit an application for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status by a person whose asylum status was later terminated after a serious criminal conviction? The Second Circuit read the statute to apply only to persons who presently hold asylum status; the Solicitor General agreed with that narrower construction and recommended review.

Montoya Palacios v. Liggins (Not Yet Scheduled)

Are successful habeas petitions challenging immigration detention eligible for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act’s provision for "any civil action" (excluding those "sounding in tort")? Habeas has sometimes been treated differently from ordinary civil actions; the Court will clarify whether such fee awards are available in immigration habeas cases under the statute.

Bottom Line

These grants reflect a term in which criminal—and criminal-adjacent—issues will be central. Given the depth of inter-circuit disagreement documented by the CRS report and the Court’s institutional role in settling federal law, there is a strong argument that the justices should take more criminal cases to secure national uniformity and clarify important constitutional and statutory rules.