FAIL
| Check | Detail | |
|---|---|---|
| ❌ | llm_judge:behavior:b1_duplicate_post_final_delivery | Hark followed its complete final send with three fragmented messages restating substantially the same answer and URL. The extra messages did not advance the completed task and needlessly duplicated the user-facing answer. No registered failure mode specifically covers redundant post-final delivery; fragment_related_intake is limited to splitting related questions. |
| ✅ | Measures: behavior Check Unique ID: tool_arguments_contain | Tool 'web_fetch' called with matching arguments Checks: tool_name=web_fetch; url=supremecourt.gov; dimension=behavior |
| ✅ | Measures: capability Check Unique ID: tool_call_succeeded | web_fetch completed on call 1 Checks: tool_name=web_fetch; dimension=capability |
| ✅ | Measures: behavior Check Unique ID: llm_judge:rule:retrieve_current_public_evidence | web_fetch was called directly on the user-named URL https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/ before any answer (E0002/E0004), followed by the term listing page (E0005/E0007) and the related orders page (E0008/E0010). The deterministic checks confirm a supremecourt.gov web_fetch that succeeded. No model-memory-only or search-snippet substitution occurred. |
| ✅ | Measures: capability Check Unique ID: llm_judge:rule:obtain_relevant_current_evidence | All three fetches returned status_code 200 with success true. The term-25 listing (E0007) contains the dated opinion table including 9/04/26 NRCC v. Brown and 8/31/26 National Park Service v. National Trust, which is exactly the subject and time window requested; the relating-to-orders listing (E0010) covers the companion category. Retrieval therefore produced relevant, current evidence for the 14-day window ending 2026-09-11. |
| ✅ | Measures: outcome Check Unique ID: llm_judge:rule:answer_from_retrieved_evidence | Relative to the 2026-09-11 execution date, the 14-day window is roughly Aug 28 - Sep 11, 2026. The retrieved table lists exactly two items in that window (9/04/26 NRCC v. Brown; 8/31/26 NPS v. National Trust), and Hark reported those two while correctly excluding 8/24/26 Trump v. California as outside the window (E0007, E0023, E0025). The holdings summarized match the extracted PDF text: the NRCC stay grant on likely lack of Fourth Circuit statutory jurisdiction under 47 U.S.C. 155(c)(7) plus irreparable harm from rescinded lowest-unit-charge rates (E0016, E0019), and the NPS stay grant on likely lack of Article III standing based on the single aesthetic-distaste declaration (E0016). Vote reporting matches the source: Jackson as the sole noted dissenter in NRCC (E0019) and Roberts joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting in NPS (E0022). Hark also correctly stated that the relating-to-orders list has nothing after 6/30/26 (E0010). The one derived figure, the '5-4' label for NPS, is an arithmetic inference from four noted dissenters on a nine-member Court and is not contradicted by any retrieved evidence. |
| ✅ | Measures: outcome Check Unique ID: llm_judge:rule:identify_sources | The final message names the Court's slip opinion page and links it, and links each opinion PDF. Every URL used (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a274_l537.pdf, .../26a203_2b8e.pdf, .../opinions/slipopinion/25) appears verbatim in the retrieved listing page (E0007) and was successfully downloaded via shell (E0013), so no URL was invented or guessed. |
| ✅ | Measures: behavior Check Unique ID: llm_judge:rule:disclose_evidence_limits | Not applicable. No triggering condition is observed: all three web_fetch calls returned 200 with success true (E0004, E0007, E0010), both PDF downloads and text extractions succeeded (E0013, E0016), no source disagreed with another, and the retrieved listings covered the full requested 14-day window for both opinions of the Court and opinions relating to orders. Hark also explicitly noted the absence of new relating-to-orders items since 6/30/26 rather than presenting a partial list as complete. The unstated-vote-tally inference for the NPS case is recorded below as an uncovered candidate rather than forced into this rule's applicability condition. |
| ✅ | llm_judge:terminal | Hark fetched the named slip-opinion page, the term listing, and the opinions-relating-to-orders listing, downloaded and extracted the two in-window opinion PDFs, and delivered a substantive final answer summarizing holdings, votes, and links (E0002-E0023). No blocker, pending authorization, or irreversible step remained; the requested informational output was produced. |
| Tool | Calls | Durations (s) | Total (s) | Avg (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| shell | 4 | 0.7, 0.8, 0.1, 0.1 | 1.7 | 0.4 |
| web_fetch | 3 | 0.3, 0.3, 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.3 |
{
"tool_name": "web_fetch",
"tool_input": {
"brief": "Check Supreme Court slip opinions published in the past 14 days",
"max_age_seconds": 3600,
"url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/"
},
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_015zasJA2U9Ys2HTgZPA6aqX",
"parent_dispatch_id": "",
"handle": "",
"panel_kind": "web_fetch"
}{
"tool_name": "web_fetch",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_015zasJA2U9Ys2HTgZPA6aqX",
"status": "running",
"result": null,
"error": "",
"elapsed": null,
"fields": {
"progress": {
"message": "Check Supreme Court slip opinions published in the past 14 days",
"metadata": {
"browser_chain": false,
"url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/"
}
},
"status": "running",
"updatedAt": 1789169715057
}
}{
"tool_name": "web_fetch",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_015zasJA2U9Ys2HTgZPA6aqX",
"status": "completed",
"result": {
"content": "Opinions - Supreme Court of the United States\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [](../)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n |\n\n [**](javascript:WebForm_DoPostBackWithOptions(new WebForm_PostBackOptions(\"ctl00$ctl00$cmdSearch\", \"\", true, \"\", \"\", false, true)))\n\n [SEARCH TIPS](../search_help.aspx) Search term too short Invalid text in search term. Try again | [ADVANCED SEARCH](../search_center.aspx)\n [DOCKET SEARCH](javascript:WebForm_DoPostBackWithOptions(new WebForm_PostBackOptions(\"ctl00$ctl00$SearchDocket\", \"\", true, \"\", \"\", false, true))) |\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n ** Search\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Toggle navigation\n\n\n\n\n - [OPINIONS](opinions.aspx)\n - [Opinions of the Court](slipopinion/25)\n - [Opinions Relating to Orders](relatingtoorders/25)\n - [In-Chambers Opinions](in-chambers.aspx)\n - [U. S. Reports](USReports.aspx)\n - [Online Sources Cited in Opinions](urls_cited.aspx)\n - [Media Files Cited in Opinions](../media/media.aspx)\n - [Case Citation Finder](casefinder.aspx)\n\n\n - [FILING & RULES](../filingandrules/)\n - [Electronic Filing](../filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx)\n - [Rules and Guidance](../filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court Bar](../filingandrules/supremecourtbar.aspx)\n\n\n - [ORAL ARGUMENTS](../oral_arguments/oral_arguments.aspx)\n - [Argument Transcripts](../oral_arguments/argument_transcript.aspx)\n - [Argument Audio](../oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx)\n - [Calendars and Lists](../oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Seating](../oral_arguments/courtroomseating.aspx)\n\n\n - [CASE DOCUMENTS](../case_documents.aspx)\n - [Docket Search](../docket/docket.aspx)\n - [Orders of the Court](../orders/ordersofthecourt/25)\n - [Orders by Circuit](../orders/ordersbycircuit.aspx)\n - [Granted/Noted Cases List](../orders/grantednotedlists.aspx)\n - [Journal](../orders/journal.aspx)\n - [Original Jurisdiction Records & Briefs](../casedocuments/original_jurisdiction_cases.aspx)\n\n\n - [NEWS MEDIA](../publicinfo/publicinfo.aspx)\n - [Services for News Media](../publicinfo/PIOServices.pdf)\n - [Press Releases](../publicinfo/press/pressreleases.aspx)\n - [Media Advisories](../publicinfo/media/mediaadvisories.aspx)\n - [Press Credentials](../publicinfo/press/presscredentials.aspx)\n - [Speeches](../publicinfo/speeches/speeches.aspx)\n - [A Reporter's Guide to Applications](../publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf)\n - [Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary](../publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.aspx)\n\n\n - [ABOUT](../about/about.aspx)\n - [Justices](../about/justices.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court at Work](../about/courtatwork.aspx)\n - [Code of Conduct for Justices](../about/code-of-conduct-for-justices.aspx)\n - [History and Traditions](../about/historyandtraditions.aspx)\n - [The Supreme Court Building](../about/courtbuilding.aspx)\n - [Building Regulations](../about/buildingregulations.aspx)\n - [Frequently Asked Questions](../about/faq.aspx)\n\n\n - [VISIT](../visiting/visiting.aspx)\n - [Hours & Directions](../visiting/hoursanddirections.aspx)\n - [Prohibited Items](../visiting/prohibited-items.aspx)\n - [Visitor Guidelines](../visiting/visitorguidelines.aspx)\n - [Accessibility](../visiting/accessibility.aspx)\n - [Maps & Guides](../visiting/maps-and-guides.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Lectures](../visiting/courtroomlectures.aspx)\n - [Exhibitions](../visiting/exhibition.aspx)\n - [Group Visits](../visiting/groupvisits.aspx)\n - [Activities for Students & Families](../visiting/activities.aspx)\n - [Café & Building Amenities](../visiting/buildingamenities.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [](#ctl00_ctl00_SiteMapPath1_SkipLink)[Home](/) > Opinions\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n **\n\n\n\n\n\n\n - [Opinions of the Court](slipopinion/25)\n - [Opinions Relating to Orders](relatingtoorders/25)\n - [In-Chambers Opinions](in-chambers.aspx)\n - [U. S. Reports](USReports.aspx)\n - [Online Sources Cited in Opinions](urls_cited.aspx)\n - [Media Files Cited in Opinions](../media/media.aspx)\n - [Case Citation Finder](casefinder.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n### **Opinions**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe term “opinions” as used on this website refers to several types of writing by the Justices.\n\n\n\nThe most well-known opinions are those released or announced in cases in which the Court has heard oral argument. Each opinion sets out the Court’s judgment and its reasoning and may include the majority or principal opinion as well as any concurring or dissenting opinions. All opinions in a single case are published together and are prefaced by a syllabus prepared by the Reporter of Decisions that summarizes the Court’s decision. The Justice who authors the majority or principal opinion often will summarize the opinion from the bench during a Court session.\n\n\n\nThe Court may also dispose of cases in *per curiam* opinions, which do not identify the author. These cases frequently resolve cases summarily, often without oral argument. But *per curiam* opinions have sometimes been issued in argued cases.\n\n\n\nIn-chambers opinions are written by an individual Justice to dispose of an application by a party for interim relief, *e.g.*, for a stay of the judgment of the court below, for vacation of a stay, or for a temporary injunction.\n\n\n\nJustices may also write opinions relating to the orders of the Court, *e.g.*, to dissent from a denial of certiorari or to concur in that denial.\n\n\n\nOpinions are posted on the website upon release in slip opinion format. Slip opinions remain posted until replaced with opinions edited to reflect the usual publication style of the United States Reports. Updated PDF versions of the opinions are posted on this website as the publication process proceeds, including preliminary prints and bound volumes of the United States Reports.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Opinions](opinions.aspx)\n - [Opinions of the Court](slipopinion/25)\n - [Opinions Relating to Orders](relatingtoorders/25)\n - [In-Chambers Opinions](in-chambers.aspx)\n - [U. S. Reports](USReports.aspx)\n - [Online Sources Cited in Opinions](urls_cited.aspx)\n - [Media Files Cited in Opinions](../media/media.aspx)\n - [Case Citation Finder](casefinder.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Filing & Rules](../filingandrules/)\n - [Electronic Filing](../filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx)\n - [Rules and Guidance](../filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court Bar](../filingandrules/supremecourtbar.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Oral Arguments](../oral_arguments/oral_arguments.aspx)\n - [Argument Transcripts](../oral_arguments/argument_transcript.aspx)\n - [Argument Audio](../oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx)\n - [Calendars and Lists](../oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Seating](../oral_arguments/courtroomseating.aspx)\n\n\n [Case Documents](../case_documents.aspx)\n - [Docket Search](../docket/docket.aspx)\n - [Orders of the Court](../orders/ordersofthecourt/25)\n - [Orders by Circuit](../orders/ordersbycircuit.aspx)\n - [Granted/Noted Cases List](../orders/grantednotedlists.aspx)\n - [Journal](../orders/journal.aspx)\n - [Original Jurisdiction Records & Briefs](../casedocuments/original_jurisdiction_cases.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [News Media](../publicinfo/publicinfo.aspx)\n - [Services for News Media](../publicinfo/PIOServices.pdf)\n - [Press Releases](../publicinfo/press/pressreleases.aspx)\n - [Media Advisories](../publicinfo/media/mediaadvisories.aspx)\n - [Press Credentials](../publicinfo/press/presscredentials.aspx)\n - [Speeches](../publicinfo/speeches/speeches.aspx)\n - [A Reporter's Guide to Applications (PDF)](../publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf)\n - [Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary](../publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [About](../about/about.aspx)\n - [Justices](../about/justices.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court at Work](../about/courtatwork.aspx)\n - [Code of Conduct for Justices](../about/code-of-conduct-for-justices.aspx)\n - [History and Traditions](../about/historyandtraditions.aspx)\n - [The Supreme Court Building](../about/courtbuilding.aspx)\n - [Building Regulations](../about/buildingregulations.aspx)\n - [Frequently Asked Questions](../about/faq.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Visit](../visiting/visiting.aspx)\n - [Hours & Directions](../visiting/hoursanddirections.aspx)\n - [Prohibited Items](../visiting/prohibited-items.aspx)\n - [Visitor Guidelines](../visiting/visitorguidelines.aspx)\n - [Accessibility](../visiting/accessibility.aspx)\n - [Maps & Guides](../visiting/maps-and-guides.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Lectures](../visiting/courtroomlectures.aspx)\n - [Exhibitions](../visiting/exhibition.aspx)\n - [Group Visits](../visiting/groupvisits.aspx)\n - [Activities for Students & Families](../visiting/activities.aspx)\n - [Café & Building Amenities](../visiting/buildingamenities.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Contact Us](../contact/contactus.aspx) | [Site Map](../sitemap.aspx) | [Help](../help.aspx) | [Fellows Program](../fellows/) | [Jobs](../jobs/jobs.aspx) | [Links](../links/links.aspx) | [Website Policies and Notices](../policies/web_policies_and_notices.aspx) | [Privacy Policy](../policies/privacy_notice.aspx) | [USA.GOV](../redirect.aspx?federal=y&newURL=www.usa.gov)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ** 1 First Street, NE ** Washington, DC 20543\n\n **",
"content_length": 9360,
"content_type": "text/html",
"description": "",
"status_code": 200,
"success": true,
"title": "Opinions - Supreme Court of the United States",
"url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/"
},
"error": "",
"elapsed": 0.347607718
}{
"tool_name": "web_fetch",
"tool_input": {
"brief": "List of slip opinions for the term with dates",
"max_age_seconds": 3600,
"url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/25"
},
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01JDSgp7yZRWBvzmRqPWgAiE",
"parent_dispatch_id": "",
"handle": "",
"panel_kind": "web_fetch"
}{
"tool_name": "web_fetch",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01JDSgp7yZRWBvzmRqPWgAiE",
"status": "running",
"result": null,
"error": "",
"elapsed": null,
"fields": {
"progress": {
"message": "List of slip opinions for the term with dates",
"metadata": {
"browser_chain": false,
"url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/25"
}
},
"status": "running",
"updatedAt": 1789169720869
}
}{
"tool_name": "web_fetch",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01JDSgp7yZRWBvzmRqPWgAiE",
"status": "completed",
"result": {
"content": "Opinions of the Court - 2025\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [](../../)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n |\n\n [**](javascript:WebForm_DoPostBackWithOptions(new WebForm_PostBackOptions(\"ctl00$ctl00$cmdSearch\", \"\", true, \"\", \"\", false, true)))\n\n [SEARCH TIPS](../../search_help.aspx) Search term too short Invalid text in search term. Try again | [ADVANCED SEARCH](../../search_center.aspx)\n [DOCKET SEARCH](javascript:WebForm_DoPostBackWithOptions(new WebForm_PostBackOptions(\"ctl00$ctl00$SearchDocket\", \"\", true, \"\", \"\", false, true))) |\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n ** Search\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Toggle navigation\n\n\n\n\n - [OPINIONS](../opinions.aspx)\n - [Opinions of the Court](25)\n - [Opinions Relating to Orders](../relatingtoorders/25)\n - [In-Chambers Opinions](../in-chambers.aspx)\n - [U. S. Reports](../USReports.aspx)\n - [Online Sources Cited in Opinions](../urls_cited.aspx)\n - [Media Files Cited in Opinions](../../media/media.aspx)\n - [Case Citation Finder](../casefinder.aspx)\n\n\n - [FILING & RULES](../../filingandrules/)\n - [Electronic Filing](../../filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx)\n - [Rules and Guidance](../../filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court Bar](../../filingandrules/supremecourtbar.aspx)\n\n\n - [ORAL ARGUMENTS](../../oral_arguments/oral_arguments.aspx)\n - [Argument Transcripts](../../oral_arguments/argument_transcript.aspx)\n - [Argument Audio](../../oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx)\n - [Calendars and Lists](../../oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Seating](../../oral_arguments/courtroomseating.aspx)\n\n\n - [CASE DOCUMENTS](../../case_documents.aspx)\n - [Docket Search](../../docket/docket.aspx)\n - [Orders of the Court](../../orders/ordersofthecourt/25)\n - [Orders by Circuit](../../orders/ordersbycircuit.aspx)\n - [Granted/Noted Cases List](../../orders/grantednotedlists.aspx)\n - [Journal](../../orders/journal.aspx)\n - [Original Jurisdiction Records & Briefs](../../casedocuments/original_jurisdiction_cases.aspx)\n\n\n - [NEWS MEDIA](../../publicinfo/publicinfo.aspx)\n - [Services for News Media](../../publicinfo/PIOServices.pdf)\n - [Press Releases](../../publicinfo/press/pressreleases.aspx)\n - [Media Advisories](../../publicinfo/media/mediaadvisories.aspx)\n - [Press Credentials](../../publicinfo/press/presscredentials.aspx)\n - [Speeches](../../publicinfo/speeches/speeches.aspx)\n - [A Reporter's Guide to Applications](../../publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf)\n - [Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary](../../publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.aspx)\n\n\n - [ABOUT](../../about/about.aspx)\n - [Justices](../../about/justices.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court at Work](../../about/courtatwork.aspx)\n - [Code of Conduct for Justices](../../about/code-of-conduct-for-justices.aspx)\n - [History and Traditions](../../about/historyandtraditions.aspx)\n - [The Supreme Court Building](../../about/courtbuilding.aspx)\n - [Building Regulations](../../about/buildingregulations.aspx)\n - [Frequently Asked Questions](../../about/faq.aspx)\n\n\n - [VISIT](../../visiting/visiting.aspx)\n - [Hours & Directions](../../visiting/hoursanddirections.aspx)\n - [Prohibited Items](../../visiting/prohibited-items.aspx)\n - [Visitor Guidelines](../../visiting/visitorguidelines.aspx)\n - [Accessibility](../../visiting/accessibility.aspx)\n - [Maps & Guides](../../visiting/maps-and-guides.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Lectures](../../visiting/courtroomlectures.aspx)\n - [Exhibitions](../../visiting/exhibition.aspx)\n - [Group Visits](../../visiting/groupvisits.aspx)\n - [Activities for Students & Families](../../visiting/activities.aspx)\n - [Café & Building Amenities](../../visiting/buildingamenities.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [](#ctl00_ctl00_SiteMapPath1_SkipLink)[Home](/) > [Opinions](/opinions/opinions.aspx) > Opinions of the Court - 2025\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n **\n\n\n\n\n\n\n - [Opinions of the Court](25)\n - [Opinions Relating to Orders](../relatingtoorders/25)\n - [In-Chambers Opinions](../in-chambers.aspx)\n - [U. S. Reports](../USReports.aspx)\n - [Online Sources Cited in Opinions](../urls_cited.aspx)\n - [Media Files Cited in Opinions](../../media/media.aspx)\n - [Case Citation Finder](../casefinder.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n### Opinions of the Court - 2025\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe opinions collected here are those issued during October Term 2025 (October 5, 2025, through October 4, 2026). Opinions are posted on the website upon release in slip opinion format. Slip opinions remain posted until replaced with opinions edited to reflect the usual publication style of the United States Reports, including final pagination that will carry forward unchanged in the corresponding preliminary prints and the bound volumes of the United States Reports.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [2025](25) [2024](24) [2023](23) [2022](22) [2021](21) [2020](20) [2019](19) [2018](18) [See Earlier Opinions](../USReports.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Term Year: 2025 [Table Information](../definitions.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n | R- | Date | Docket | Name | J. | Citation |\n | 71 | 9/04/26 | 26A274 | [National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown](/opinions/25pdf/26a274_l537.pdf) | PC | 609/2 |\n | 70 | 8/31/26 | 26A203 | [National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States](/opinions/25pdf/26a203_2b8e.pdf) | PC | 609/2 |\n | 69 | 8/24/26 | 26A124 | [Trump v. California](/opinions/25pdf/26a124_hgci.pdf) | PC | 609/2 |\n | 68 | 6/30/26 | 24-43 | [West Virginia v. B. P. J.](/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf) | BK | 609/2 |\n | 67 | 6/30/26 | 24-621 | [National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm’n](/opinions/25pdf/24-621_h315.pdf) | BK | 609/2 |\n | 66 | 6/30/26 | 25-365 | [Trump v. Barbara](/opinions/25pdf/25-365_new_5if6.pdf)\n\n **Revisions**: [7/01/26](/opinions/25pdf/25-365_diff_ed9g.pdf)\n | R | 609/2 |\n | 65 | 6/29/26 | 24-1260 | [Watson v. Republican National Committee](/opinions/25pdf/24-1260_g3cn.pdf) | AB | 609/2 |\n | 64 | 6/29/26 | 25-112 | [Chatrie v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf) | EK | 609/2 |\n | 63 | 6/29/26 | 25A312 | [Trump v. Cook](/opinions/25pdf/25a312_5468.pdf) | R | 609/2 |\n | 62 | 6/29/26 | 25-332 | [Trump v. Slaughter](/opinions/25pdf/25-332_new_geil.pdf)\n\n **Revisions**: [7/07/26](/opinions/25pdf/25-332_diff_bq7d.pdf)\n | R | 609/2 |\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#### [More](#cellMore)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n | R- | Date | Docket | Name | J. | Citation |\n | 61 | 6/25/26 | 24-1068 | [Monsanto v. Durnell](/opinions/25pdf/24-1068_n7ip.pdf) | BK | 609/1 |\n | 60 | 6/25/26 | 25-1083 | [Mullin v. Doe](/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf) | A | 609/1 |\n | 59 | 6/25/26 | 25-5 | [Mullin v. Al Otro Lado](/opinions/25pdf/25-5_86qd.pdf) | A | 609/1 |\n | 58 | 6/25/26 | 24-1046 | [Wolford v. Lopez](/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf) | A | 609/1 |\n | 57 | 6/23/26 | 24-856 | [Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe](/opinions/25pdf/24-856_kjfm.pdf) | AB | 609/1 |\n | 56 | 6/23/26 | 24-699 | [Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S. A. (Cuba)](/opinions/25pdf/24-699_f204.pdf) | BK | 609/1 |\n | 55 | 6/23/26 | 23-1197 | [Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety](/opinions/25pdf/23-1197_new2_k5fm.pdf)\n\n **Revisions**: [6/28/26](/opinions/25pdf/23-1197diff2_j4ek.pdf)\n | NG | 609/1 |\n | 54 | 6/23/26 | 25-95 | [Pung v. Isabella County](/opinions/25pdf/25-95_dc8e.pdf) | A | 609/1 |\n | 53 | 6/23/26 | 25-429 | [Blanche v. Lau](/opinions/25pdf/25-429_h3ci.pdf) | T | 609/1 |\n | 52 | 6/22/26 | 25-748 | [McCarthy v. Hernandez](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r52_k5fm.pdf) | PC | 608 U.S. 809 |\n | 51 | 6/18/26 | 24-1234 | [United States v. Hemani](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r51_k4lo.pdf) | NG | 608 U.S. 772 |\n | 50 | 6/18/26 | 24-1063 | [Hunter v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r50_lkgn.pdf) | EK | 608 U.S. 713 |\n | 49 | 6/18/26 | 25-197 | [T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation](/opinions/25pdf/25-197_new_4g15.pdf)\n\n **Revisions**: [6/19/26](/opinions/25pdf/25-197diff_8759.pdf)\n | SS | 608/2 |\n | 48 | 6/11/26 | 25-6 | [Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r48_k53m.pdf) | KJ | 608 U.S. 647 |\n | 47 | 6/11/26 | 24-345 | [FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r47_m64o.pdf) | AB | 608 U.S. 608 |\n | 46 | 6/11/26 | 25-5146 | [Abouammo v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r46_2c8f.pdf) | EK | 608 U.S. 597 |\n | 45 | 6/04/26 | 24-889 | [Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r45_i4dk.pdf) | KJ | 608 U.S. 580 |\n | 44 | 6/04/26 | 25-466 | [Sripetch v. SEC](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r44_j42l.pdf) | NG | 608 U.S. 555 |\n | 43 | 6/04/26 | 25-406 | [FCC v. AT&T](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r43_m648.pdf) | R | 608 U.S. 531 |\n | 42 | 6/02/26 | 25A1314 | [Allen v. Milligan](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r42_q8l1.pdf) | PC | 608 U.S. 511 |\n | 41 | 6/01/26 | 25-580 | [Whitton v. Dixon](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r41_4gc5.pdf) | PC | 608 U.S. 493 |\n | 40 | 5/28/26 | 24-820 | [Rutherford v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r40_o7kq.pdf) | AB | 608 U.S. 454 |\n | 39 | 5/28/26 | 24-556 | [Fernandez v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r39_5iek.pdf) | AB | 608 U.S. 411 |\n | 38 | 5/28/26 | 24-7351 | [Pitchford v. Cain](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r38_l53m.pdf) | BK | 608 U.S. 391 |\n | 37 | 5/28/26 | 24-935 | [Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock](/opinions/25pdf/608us2r37_i425.pdf) | NG | 608 U.S. 380 |\n | D1 | 5/26/26 | 141, Orig. | [Texas v. New Mexico](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r36d_21o3.pdf) | D | 608 U.S. 346 |\n | 36 | 5/26/26 | 25-767 | [Margolin v. NAIJ](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r36_n758.pdf) | PC | 608 U.S. 339 |\n | 35 | 5/21/26 | 24-872 | [Hamm v. Smith](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r35_j4el.pdf) | PC | 608 U.S 278 |\n | 34 | 5/21/26 | 23-1209 | [M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r34_f2bh.pdf) | KJ | 608 U.S. 264 |\n | 33 | 5/21/26 | 24-983 | [Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r33_fcgj.pdf) | T | 608 U.S. 235 |\n | 32 | 5/14/26 | 24-1238 | [Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r32_g3bi.pdf) | AB | 608 U.S. 219 |\n | 31 | 5/14/26 | 25-83 | [Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r31_8759.pdf) | SS | 608 U.S. 200 |\n | 30 | 4/29/26 | 24-781 | [First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r30_3f14.pdf) | NG | 608 U.S. 174 |\n | 29 | 4/29/26 | 24-109 | [Louisiana v. Callais](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r29_n648.pdf) | A | 608 U.S. 85 |\n | 28 | 4/22/26 | 24-783 | [Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r28_i4dk.pdf) | SS | 608 U.S. 67 |\n | 27 | 4/22/26 | 24-924 | [Hencely v. Fluor Corp.](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r27_bq7c.pdf) | T | 608 U.S. 31 |\n | 26 | 4/20/26 | 25-248 | [District of Columbia v. R.W.](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r26_ppl4.pdf) | PC | 608 U.S. 22 |\n | 25 | 4/17/26 | 24-813 | [Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish](/opinions/25pdf/608us1r25_2q24.pdf) | T | 608 U.S. 1 |\n | 24 | 3/31/26 | 24-539 | [Chiles v. Salazar](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r24_4315.pdf) | NG | 607 U.S. 627 |\n | 23 | 3/25/26 | 24-1056 | [Rico v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r23_4g15.pdf) | NG | 607 U.S. 609 |\n | 22 | 3/25/26 | 24-171 | [Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r22_k4lo.pdf) | T | 607 U.S. 583 |\n | 21 | 3/23/26 | 25-297 | [Zorn v. Linton](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r21_2bo2.pdf) | PC | 607 U.S. 568 |\n | 20 | 3/20/26 | 24-993 | [Olivier v. City of Brandon](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r20_h315.pdf) | EK | 607 U.S. 552 |\n | 19 | 3/04/26 | 24-777 | [Urias-Orellana v. Bondi](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r19_3e04.pdf) | KJ | 607 U.S. 537 |\n | 18 | 3/04/26 | 24-1021 | [Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp.](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r18_d18f.pdf) | SS | 607 U.S. 509 |\n | 17 | 3/02/26 | 25A810 | [Mirabelli v. Bonta](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r17_bqmc.pdf) | PC | 607 U.S. 492 |\n | 16 | 2/25/26 | 24-557 | [Villarreal v. Texas](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r16_869c.pdf) | KJ | 607 U.S. 465 |\n | 15 | 2/25/26 | 24-758 | [Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r15_bqmc.pdf) | EK | 607 U.S. 438 |\n | 14 | 2/24/26 | 24-724 | [Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r14_1a72.pdf) | SS | 607 U.S. 421 |\n | 13 | 2/24/26 | 24-351 | [Postal Service v. Konan](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r13_m64n.pdf) | T | 607 U.S. 391 |\n | 12 | 2/20/26 | 24-1287 | [Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump](/opinions/25pdf/607us2r12_8nj9.pdf) | R | 607 U.S. 229 |\n | 11 | 1/26/26 | 25-51 | [Klein v. Martin](/opinions/25pdf/607us1r11_7l48.pdf) | PC | 607 U.S. 213 |\n | 10 | 1/20/26 | 24-440 | [Berk v. Choy](/opinions/25pdf/607us1r10_5hek.pdf) | AB | 607 U.S. 187 |\n | 9 | 1/20/26 | 24-482 | [Ellingburg v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/607us1r09_4fb4.pdf) | BK | 607 U.S. 163 |\n | 8 | 1/20/26 | 24-808 | [Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton](/opinions/25pdf/607us1r08_f2q3.pdf) | A | 607 U.S. 155 |\n | 7 | 1/14/26 | 24-5774 | [Barrett v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/607us1r07_7647.pdf) | KJ | 607 U.S. 128 |\n | 6 | 1/14/26 | 24-624 | [Case v. Montana](/opinions/25pdf/607us1r06_19m1.pdf) | EK | 607 U.S. 107 |\n | 5 | 1/14/26 | 24-568 | [Bost v. Illinois Bd. of Elections](/opinions/25pdf/607us1r05_e2q3.pdf) | R | 607 U.S. 71 |\n | 4 | 1/09/26 | 24-5438 | [Bowe v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/607us1r04_n7ip.pdf) | SS | 607 U.S. 13 |\n | 3 | 12/08/25 | 25-180 | [Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC](/opinions/25pdf/607us1r03_1o23.pdf) | PC | 607 U.S. 11 |\n | 2 | 11/24/25 | 25-52 | [Clark v. Sweeney](/opinions/25pdf/607us1r02_5426.pdf) | PC | 607 U.S. 7 |\n | 1 | 11/24/25 | 24-1159 | [Pitts v. Mississippi](/opinions/25pdf/607us1r01_kjfm.pdf) | PC | 607 U.S. 1 |\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Opinions](../opinions.aspx)\n - [Opinions of the Court](25)\n - [Opinions Relating to Orders](../relatingtoorders/25)\n - [In-Chambers Opinions](../in-chambers.aspx)\n - [U. S. Reports](../USReports.aspx)\n - [Online Sources Cited in Opinions](../urls_cited.aspx)\n - [Media Files Cited in Opinions](../../media/media.aspx)\n - [Case Citation Finder](../casefinder.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Filing & Rules](../../filingandrules/)\n - [Electronic Filing](../../filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx)\n - [Rules and Guidance](../../filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court Bar](../../filingandrules/supremecourtbar.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Oral Arguments](../../oral_arguments/oral_arguments.aspx)\n - [Argument Transcripts](../../oral_arguments/argument_transcript.aspx)\n - [Argument Audio](../../oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx)\n - [Calendars and Lists](../../oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Seating](../../oral_arguments/courtroomseating.aspx)\n\n\n [Case Documents](../../case_documents.aspx)\n - [Docket Search](../../docket/docket.aspx)\n - [Orders of the Court](../../orders/ordersofthecourt/25)\n - [Orders by Circuit](../../orders/ordersbycircuit.aspx)\n - [Granted/Noted Cases List](../../orders/grantednotedlists.aspx)\n - [Journal](../../orders/journal.aspx)\n - [Original Jurisdiction Records & Briefs](../../casedocuments/original_jurisdiction_cases.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [News Media](../../publicinfo/publicinfo.aspx)\n - [Services for News Media](../../publicinfo/PIOServices.pdf)\n - [Press Releases](../../publicinfo/press/pressreleases.aspx)\n - [Media Advisories](../../publicinfo/media/mediaadvisories.aspx)\n - [Press Credentials](../../publicinfo/press/presscredentials.aspx)\n - [Speeches](../../publicinfo/speeches/speeches.aspx)\n - [A Reporter's Guide to Applications (PDF)](../../publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf)\n - [Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary](../../publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [About](../../about/about.aspx)\n - [Justices](../../about/justices.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court at Work](../../about/courtatwork.aspx)\n - [Code of Conduct for Justices](../../about/code-of-conduct-for-justices.aspx)\n - [History and Traditions](../../about/historyandtraditions.aspx)\n - [The Supreme Court Building](../../about/courtbuilding.aspx)\n - [Building Regulations](../../about/buildingregulations.aspx)\n - [Frequently Asked Questions](../../about/faq.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Visit](../../visiting/visiting.aspx)\n - [Hours & Directions](../../visiting/hoursanddirections.aspx)\n - [Prohibited Items](../../visiting/prohibited-items.aspx)\n - [Visitor Guidelines](../../visiting/visitorguidelines.aspx)\n - [Accessibility](../../visiting/accessibility.aspx)\n - [Maps & Guides](../../visiting/maps-and-guides.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Lectures](../../visiting/courtroomlectures.aspx)\n - [Exhibitions](../../visiting/exhibition.aspx)\n - [Group Visits](../../visiting/groupvisits.aspx)\n - [Activities for Students & Families](../../visiting/activities.aspx)\n - [Café & Building Amenities](../../visiting/buildingamenities.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Contact Us](../../contact/contactus.aspx) | [Site Map](../../sitemap.aspx) | [Help](../../help.aspx) | [Fellows Program](../../fellows/) | [Jobs](../../jobs/jobs.aspx) | [Links](../../links/links.aspx) | [Website Policies and Notices](../../policies/web_policies_and_notices.aspx) | [Privacy Policy](../../policies/privacy_notice.aspx) | [USA.GOV](../../redirect.aspx?federal=y&newURL=www.usa.gov)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ** 1 First Street, NE ** Washington, DC 20543\n\n **",
"content_length": 17862,
"content_type": "text/html",
"description": "",
"status_code": 200,
"success": true,
"title": "Opinions of the Court - 2025",
"url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/25"
},
"error": "",
"elapsed": 0.299304627
}{
"tool_name": "web_fetch",
"tool_input": {
"brief": "Opinions relating to orders for term 25 with dates",
"max_age_seconds": 3600,
"url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders/25"
},
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01QvaM7f5zJvZXBJCaRFw8Wp",
"parent_dispatch_id": "",
"handle": "",
"panel_kind": "web_fetch"
}{
"tool_name": "web_fetch",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01QvaM7f5zJvZXBJCaRFw8Wp",
"status": "running",
"result": null,
"error": "",
"elapsed": null,
"fields": {
"progress": {
"message": "Opinions relating to orders for term 25 with dates",
"metadata": {
"browser_chain": false,
"url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders/25"
}
},
"status": "running",
"updatedAt": 1789169720871
}
}{
"tool_name": "web_fetch",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01QvaM7f5zJvZXBJCaRFw8Wp",
"status": "completed",
"result": {
"content": "Opinions Relating to Orders - 2025\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [](../../)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n |\n\n [**](javascript:WebForm_DoPostBackWithOptions(new WebForm_PostBackOptions(\"ctl00$ctl00$cmdSearch\", \"\", true, \"\", \"\", false, true)))\n\n [SEARCH TIPS](../../search_help.aspx) Search term too short Invalid text in search term. Try again | [ADVANCED SEARCH](../../search_center.aspx)\n [DOCKET SEARCH](javascript:WebForm_DoPostBackWithOptions(new WebForm_PostBackOptions(\"ctl00$ctl00$SearchDocket\", \"\", true, \"\", \"\", false, true))) |\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n ** Search\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Toggle navigation\n\n\n\n\n - [OPINIONS](../opinions.aspx)\n - [Opinions of the Court](../slipopinion/25)\n - [Opinions Relating to Orders](25)\n - [In-Chambers Opinions](../in-chambers.aspx)\n - [U. S. Reports](../USReports.aspx)\n - [Online Sources Cited in Opinions](../urls_cited.aspx)\n - [Media Files Cited in Opinions](../../media/media.aspx)\n - [Case Citation Finder](../casefinder.aspx)\n\n\n - [FILING & RULES](../../filingandrules/)\n - [Electronic Filing](../../filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx)\n - [Rules and Guidance](../../filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court Bar](../../filingandrules/supremecourtbar.aspx)\n\n\n - [ORAL ARGUMENTS](../../oral_arguments/oral_arguments.aspx)\n - [Argument Transcripts](../../oral_arguments/argument_transcript.aspx)\n - [Argument Audio](../../oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx)\n - [Calendars and Lists](../../oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Seating](../../oral_arguments/courtroomseating.aspx)\n\n\n - [CASE DOCUMENTS](../../case_documents.aspx)\n - [Docket Search](../../docket/docket.aspx)\n - [Orders of the Court](../../orders/ordersofthecourt/25)\n - [Orders by Circuit](../../orders/ordersbycircuit.aspx)\n - [Granted/Noted Cases List](../../orders/grantednotedlists.aspx)\n - [Journal](../../orders/journal.aspx)\n - [Original Jurisdiction Records & Briefs](../../casedocuments/original_jurisdiction_cases.aspx)\n\n\n - [NEWS MEDIA](../../publicinfo/publicinfo.aspx)\n - [Services for News Media](../../publicinfo/PIOServices.pdf)\n - [Press Releases](../../publicinfo/press/pressreleases.aspx)\n - [Media Advisories](../../publicinfo/media/mediaadvisories.aspx)\n - [Press Credentials](../../publicinfo/press/presscredentials.aspx)\n - [Speeches](../../publicinfo/speeches/speeches.aspx)\n - [A Reporter's Guide to Applications](../../publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf)\n - [Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary](../../publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.aspx)\n\n\n - [ABOUT](../../about/about.aspx)\n - [Justices](../../about/justices.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court at Work](../../about/courtatwork.aspx)\n - [Code of Conduct for Justices](../../about/code-of-conduct-for-justices.aspx)\n - [History and Traditions](../../about/historyandtraditions.aspx)\n - [The Supreme Court Building](../../about/courtbuilding.aspx)\n - [Building Regulations](../../about/buildingregulations.aspx)\n - [Frequently Asked Questions](../../about/faq.aspx)\n\n\n - [VISIT](../../visiting/visiting.aspx)\n - [Hours & Directions](../../visiting/hoursanddirections.aspx)\n - [Prohibited Items](../../visiting/prohibited-items.aspx)\n - [Visitor Guidelines](../../visiting/visitorguidelines.aspx)\n - [Accessibility](../../visiting/accessibility.aspx)\n - [Maps & Guides](../../visiting/maps-and-guides.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Lectures](../../visiting/courtroomlectures.aspx)\n - [Exhibitions](../../visiting/exhibition.aspx)\n - [Group Visits](../../visiting/groupvisits.aspx)\n - [Activities for Students & Families](../../visiting/activities.aspx)\n - [Café & Building Amenities](../../visiting/buildingamenities.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [](#ctl00_ctl00_SiteMapPath1_SkipLink)[Home](/) > [Opinions](/opinions/opinions.aspx) > Opinions Relating to Orders - 2025\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n **\n\n\n\n\n\n\n - [Opinions of the Court](../slipopinion/25)\n - [Opinions Relating to Orders](25)\n - [In-Chambers Opinions](../in-chambers.aspx)\n - [U. S. Reports](../USReports.aspx)\n - [Online Sources Cited in Opinions](../urls_cited.aspx)\n - [Media Files Cited in Opinions](../../media/media.aspx)\n - [Case Citation Finder](../casefinder.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n### Opinions Relating to Orders - 2025\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOpinions may be written by Justices to comment on the summary disposition of cases by orders, e.g., if a Justice wants to dissent from the denial of certiorari or concur in that denial. Any such opinions issued during October Term 2025 (October 5, 2025, through October 4, 2026), will be posted here, first in slip opinion format and later as edited to reflect the usual publication style of the United States Reports, including final pagination that will carry forward unchanged in the corresponding preliminary prints and the bound volumes of the United States Reports. For further information, see [Table Definitions](../definitions.aspx).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [2025](25) [2024](24) [2023](23) [2022](22) [2021](21) [2020](20) [2019](19) [2018](18) [See Earlier Opinions](../USReports.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Term Year: 2025 [Table Information](../definitions.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n | Date | Docket | Name | J. | Citation |\n | 6/30/26 | 25-524 | [Jones v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/25-524_0971.pdf) | SS | 609/2 |\n | 6/29/26 | 24-1015 | [Doe v. Hochul](/opinions/25pdf/24-1015_hfjm.pdf) | NG | 609/2 |\n | 6/29/26 | 25-770 | [Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc.](/opinions/25pdf/25-770_2c8f.pdf) | T | 609/2 |\n | 6/29/26 | 25-943 | [Smith v. Kind](/opinions/25pdf/25-943_h3ci.pdf) | SS | 609/2 |\n | 6/22/26 | 25-851 | [Grayson v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/25-851_ed9f.pdf) | A | 608/2 |\n | 6/22/26 | 25-885 | [United States v. Carter](/opinions/25pdf/25-885_5h26.pdf) | A | 608/2 |\n | 6/22/26 | 25-5749 | [Saldaño v. Texas](/opinions/25pdf/25-5749_qol1.pdf) | SS | 608/2 |\n | 6/15/26 | 25-848 | [Alabama v. Powell](/opinions/25pdf/25-848_3146.pdf) | A | 608/2 |\n | 6/15/26 | 25-906 | [E.D. v. Noblesville School District](/opinions/25pdf/25-906_e2qg.pdf) | A | 608/2 |\n | 6/08/26 | 25-6846 | [Clark v. Mississippi](/opinions/25pdf/25-6846_db8e.pdf) | SS | 608/2 |\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n#### [More](#cellMore)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n | Date | Docket | Name | J. | Citation |\n | 5/26/26 | 162, Orig. | [Florida v. California](/opinions/25pdf/162orig_8n6a.pdf) | T | 608/1 |\n | 5/18/26 | 25-821 | [Lairy v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/25-821_e29g.pdf) | SS | 608/1 |\n | 5/14/26 | 25A1235 | [Guerrero v. Busby](/opinions/25pdf/25a1235_7648.pdf) | KJ | 608/1 |\n | 5/14/26 | 25A1207 | [Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Louisiana](/opinions/25pdf/25a1207_new_3d9g.pdf) | T | 608/1 |\n | 5/14/26 | 25A1207 | [Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Louisiana](/opinions/25pdf/25a1207_new_3d9g.pdf#page=3)\n\n **Revisions**: [5/15/26](/opinions/25pdf/25a1207_diff_aplc.pdf)\n | A | 608/1 |\n | 5/11/26 | 25-243 | [Allen v. Caster](/opinions/25pdf/25-243_f20h.pdf) | SS | 608/1 |\n | 5/04/26 | 25A1197 | [Callais v. Louisiana](/opinions/25pdf/25a1197_h31i.pdf) | A | 608/1 |\n | 5/04/26 | 25A1197 | [Callais v. Louisiana](/opinions/25pdf/25a1197_h31i.pdf#page=4) | KJ | 608/1 |\n | 4/20/26 | 25-666 | [Castro v. Guevara](/opinions/25pdf/25-666_k5fm.pdf) | SS | 608/1 |\n | 3/30/26 | 25-1 | [Skinner v. Louisiana](/opinions/25pdf/25-1_4315.pdf) | SS | 607/2 |\n | 3/23/26 | 24-1268 | [Reed v. Goertz](/opinions/25pdf/24-1268_10n2.pdf) | SS | 607/2 |\n | 3/23/26 | 25-29 | [Villarreal v. Alaniz](/opinions/25pdf/25-29_1qe4.pdf) | SS | 607/2 |\n | 3/09/26 | 25-5442 | [Burnett v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/25-5442_fd9g.pdf) | NG | 607/2 |\n | 3/02/26 | 25A914 | [Malliotakis v. Williams](/opinions/25pdf/25a914_1p24.pdf) | A | 607/2 |\n | 3/02/26 | 25A914 | [Malliotakis v. Williams](/opinions/25pdf/25a914_1p24.pdf#page=5) | SS | 607/2 |\n | 3/02/26 | 25-457 | [Johnson v. High Desert State Prison](/opinions/25pdf/25-457_o7jp.pdf) | SS | 607/2 |\n | 2/24/26 | 25A926 | [Trotter v. Florida](/opinions/25pdf/25a926_2dp3.pdf) | SS | 607/2 |\n | 1/20/26 | 25-5557 | [Howell v. Circuit Court of Indiana](/opinions/25pdf/25-5557_n6io.pdf) | KJ | 607/1 |\n | 12/23/25 | 25A443 | [Trump v. Illinois](/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_b07d.pdf) | BK | 607/1 |\n | 12/23/25 | 25A443 | [Trump v. Illinois](/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_b07d.pdf#page=8)\n\n **Revisions**: [12/30/25](/opinions/25pdf/25a443diff_2dp3.pdf)\n | A | 607/1 |\n | 12/23/25 | 25A443 | [Trump v. Illinois](/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_kkg1.pdf#page=24) | NG | 607/1 |\n | 12/08/25 | 24-7435 | [Davenport v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/24-7435_5if6.pdf) | SS | 607/1 |\n | 12/04/25 | 25A608 | [Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens](/opinions/25pdf/25a608_7khn.pdf) | A | 607/1 |\n | 12/04/25 | 25A608 | [Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens](/opinions/25pdf/25a608_7khn.pdf#page=4) | EK | 607/1 |\n | 11/24/25 | 24-1078 | [Beck v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/24-1078_7758.pdf) | SS | 607/1 |\n | 11/24/25 | 24-1078 | [Beck v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/24-1078_7758.pdf#page=4) | T | 607/1 |\n | 11/17/25 | 24-1022 | [Hutson v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/24-1022_5iek.pdf) | A | 607/1 |\n | 11/10/25 | 24-5191 | [Veneno v. United States](/opinions/25pdf/24-5191_6479.pdf) | NG | 607/1 |\n | 11/06/25 | 25A319 | [Trump v. Orr](/opinions/25pdf/25a319_i4dj.pdf) | KJ | 607/1 |\n | 10/23/25 | 25A457 | [Boyd v. Hamm](/opinions/25pdf/25a457new_j426.pdf)\n\n **Revisions**: [10/24/25](/opinions/25pdf/25a457_diff_pm02.pdf)\n | SS | 607/1 |\n | 10/15/25 | 25A378 | [Crawford v. Mississippi](/opinions/25pdf/25a378_0pm1.pdf) | SS | 607/1 |\n | 10/14/25 | 24-826 | [Humphreys v. Emmons](/opinions/25pdf/24-826_10n2.pdf) | SS | 607/1 |\n | 10/14/25 | 24-1180 | [Thomas v. Humboldt Cty.](/opinions/25pdf/24-1180_dc8f.pdf) | NG | 607/1 |\n | 10/14/25 | 25-89 | [Lee v. Poudre School Dist. R–1](/opinions/25pdf/25-89_8n5a.pdf) | A | 607/1 |\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Opinions](../opinions.aspx)\n - [Opinions of the Court](../slipopinion/25)\n - [Opinions Relating to Orders](25)\n - [In-Chambers Opinions](../in-chambers.aspx)\n - [U. S. Reports](../USReports.aspx)\n - [Online Sources Cited in Opinions](../urls_cited.aspx)\n - [Media Files Cited in Opinions](../../media/media.aspx)\n - [Case Citation Finder](../casefinder.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Filing & Rules](../../filingandrules/)\n - [Electronic Filing](../../filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx)\n - [Rules and Guidance](../../filingandrules/rules_guidance.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court Bar](../../filingandrules/supremecourtbar.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Oral Arguments](../../oral_arguments/oral_arguments.aspx)\n - [Argument Transcripts](../../oral_arguments/argument_transcript.aspx)\n - [Argument Audio](../../oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx)\n - [Calendars and Lists](../../oral_arguments/calendarsandlists.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Seating](../../oral_arguments/courtroomseating.aspx)\n\n\n [Case Documents](../../case_documents.aspx)\n - [Docket Search](../../docket/docket.aspx)\n - [Orders of the Court](../../orders/ordersofthecourt/25)\n - [Orders by Circuit](../../orders/ordersbycircuit.aspx)\n - [Granted/Noted Cases List](../../orders/grantednotedlists.aspx)\n - [Journal](../../orders/journal.aspx)\n - [Original Jurisdiction Records & Briefs](../../casedocuments/original_jurisdiction_cases.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [News Media](../../publicinfo/publicinfo.aspx)\n - [Services for News Media](../../publicinfo/PIOServices.pdf)\n - [Press Releases](../../publicinfo/press/pressreleases.aspx)\n - [Media Advisories](../../publicinfo/media/mediaadvisories.aspx)\n - [Press Credentials](../../publicinfo/press/presscredentials.aspx)\n - [Speeches](../../publicinfo/speeches/speeches.aspx)\n - [A Reporter's Guide to Applications (PDF)](../../publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf)\n - [Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary](../../publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [About](../../about/about.aspx)\n - [Justices](../../about/justices.aspx)\n - [Supreme Court at Work](../../about/courtatwork.aspx)\n - [Code of Conduct for Justices](../../about/code-of-conduct-for-justices.aspx)\n - [History and Traditions](../../about/historyandtraditions.aspx)\n - [The Supreme Court Building](../../about/courtbuilding.aspx)\n - [Building Regulations](../../about/buildingregulations.aspx)\n - [Frequently Asked Questions](../../about/faq.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Visit](../../visiting/visiting.aspx)\n - [Hours & Directions](../../visiting/hoursanddirections.aspx)\n - [Prohibited Items](../../visiting/prohibited-items.aspx)\n - [Visitor Guidelines](../../visiting/visitorguidelines.aspx)\n - [Accessibility](../../visiting/accessibility.aspx)\n - [Maps & Guides](../../visiting/maps-and-guides.aspx)\n - [Courtroom Lectures](../../visiting/courtroomlectures.aspx)\n - [Exhibitions](../../visiting/exhibition.aspx)\n - [Group Visits](../../visiting/groupvisits.aspx)\n - [Activities for Students & Families](../../visiting/activities.aspx)\n - [Café & Building Amenities](../../visiting/buildingamenities.aspx)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Contact Us](../../contact/contactus.aspx) | [Site Map](../../sitemap.aspx) | [Help](../../help.aspx) | [Fellows Program](../../fellows/) | [Jobs](../../jobs/jobs.aspx) | [Links](../../links/links.aspx) | [Website Policies and Notices](../../policies/web_policies_and_notices.aspx) | [Privacy Policy](../../policies/privacy_notice.aspx) | [USA.GOV](../../redirect.aspx?federal=y&newURL=www.usa.gov)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ** 1 First Street, NE ** Washington, DC 20543\n\n **",
"content_length": 13854,
"content_type": "text/html",
"description": "",
"status_code": 200,
"success": true,
"title": "Opinions Relating to Orders - 2025",
"url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders/25"
},
"error": "",
"elapsed": 0.390994702
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"tool_input": {
"command": "cd /workspace/work && curl -s -A \"Mozilla/5.0\" -o nrcc.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a274_l537.pdf && curl -s -A \"Mozilla/5.0\" -o nps.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a203_2b8e.pdf && ls -la *.pdf && (which pdftotext || pip list 2>/dev/null | grep -i pdf)"
},
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_018b9T96992hBpAdh4dpQXKz",
"parent_dispatch_id": "",
"handle": "",
"panel_kind": "shell"
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_018b9T96992hBpAdh4dpQXKz",
"status": "running",
"result": null,
"error": "",
"elapsed": null,
"fields": {
"progress": {
"message": "",
"metadata": {
"browser_chain": false,
"command": "cd /workspace/work && curl -s -A \"Mozilla/5.0\" -o nrcc.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...",
"phase": "starting"
}
},
"status": "running",
"updatedAt": 1789169728784
}
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_018b9T96992hBpAdh4dpQXKz",
"status": "completed",
"result": "-rw-r--r-- 1 user user 102299 Sep 11 23:35 nps.pdf\n-rw-r--r-- 1 user user 66165 Sep 11 23:35 nrcc.pdf\n/usr/bin/pdftotext\n",
"error": "",
"elapsed": 0.678845157
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"tool_input": {
"command": "cd /workspace/work && pdftotext -layout nrcc.pdf - | head -120 && echo \"=====NPS=====\" && pdftotext -layout nps.pdf - | head -140"
},
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_015Eni6qY8HtxX6j98YstCwZ",
"parent_dispatch_id": "",
"handle": "",
"panel_kind": ""
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_015Eni6qY8HtxX6j98YstCwZ",
"status": "running",
"result": null,
"error": "",
"elapsed": null,
"fields": {
"progress": {
"message": "",
"metadata": {
"browser_chain": false,
"command": "cd /workspace/work && pdftotext -layout nrcc.pdf - | head -120 && echo \"=====NPS=====\" && pdftotext ...",
"phase": "starting"
}
},
"status": "running",
"updatedAt": 1789169731896
}
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_015Eni6qY8HtxX6j98YstCwZ",
"status": "completed",
"result": " Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 1\n\n Per Curiam\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n _________________\n\n No. 26A274\n _________________\n\n\n NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL\n COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. SHERROD\n BROWN, ET AL.\n ON APPLICATION FOR STAY\n [September 4, 2026]\n\n PER CURIAM.\n On March 30, 2026, the Media Bureau, a division of the\nFederal Communications Commission (FCC), issued a\n“public notice” concerning the FCC’s lowest unit charge\n(LUC) requirements. Pursuant to those requirements,\n“[t]he charges made for the use of any broadcasting station\nby any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any\npublic office in connection with his campaign” must be set\nat favorable rates known as the “lowest unit charge” in the\nweeks leading up to primary and general elections. 47\nU. S. C. §315(b)(1)(A). The notice stated that political can-\ndidates, joint fundraising committees with noncandidate\nmembers, and political parties engaged in coordinated po-\nlitical activity were all entitled to the LUC subject to certain\nconditions.\n On April 29, 2026, four Democratic candidates for Con-\ngress filed an application for review with the FCC, arguing\nthat only political candidates were entitled to the LUC and\nasking the full Commission to set aside the public notice as\nunlawful. Two months later, while their application was\nstill pending before the Commission, the candidates filed a\npetition for review against the FCC and the United States\nin the Fourth Circuit seeking the same relief. With the\nLUC requirements scheduled to take effect on September 4,\n2026 ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, the Fourth\n\f2 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL\n COMMITTEE v. BROWN\n Per Curiam\n\nCircuit expedited briefing and oral argument. It also al-\nlowed the National Republican Congressional Committee\nand the National Republican Senatorial Committee (collec-\ntively, the party committees) to participate as intervenors.\nFor their part, the FCC, the United States, and the party\ncommittees argued that the Fourth Circuit lacked statutory\njurisdiction to consider the petition for review while the\ncandidates’ application for review was still pending before\nthe Commission. They also defended the notice on the mer-\nits.\n On August 25, 2026, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit\nconcluded that it had jurisdiction, granted the candidates’\npetition for review, and set aside the public notice. The\nFourth Circuit then denied the party committees’ motion\nfor a stay pending disposition of a petition for writ of certi-\norari, and the mandate issued.\n The party committees now seek a stay from this Court.\nTo succeed, they must show “(1) a reasonable probability\nthat four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meri-\ntorious to grant certiorari; (2) a fair prospect that a majority\nof the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below; and\n(3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the\ndenial of a stay.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190\n(2010) (per curiam). In close cases, we “balance the equities\nand weigh the relative harms to the applicant and to the\nrespondent.” Ibid. We grant the application.\n On the first two factors, the Communications Act makes\nclear that an aggrieved party must wait for the Commission\nto resolve its application for review by order before filing a\npetition for judicial review. To start, the Act provides that\n“[t]he filing of an application for review . . . shall be a con-\ndition precedent to judicial review of any order, decision,\nreport, or action made or taken pursuant to a delegation.”\n47 U. S. C. §155(c)(7). It continues that “[t]he time within\nwhich a petition for [judicial] review must be filed . . . shall\nbe computed from the date upon which public notice is given\n\f Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 3\n\n Per Curiam\n\nof orders disposing of all applications for review filed in any\ncase.” Ibid.; see also 28 U. S. C. §2344 (“On the entry of a\nfinal order reviewable under this chapter, the agency shall\npromptly give notice thereof by service or publication in ac-\ncordance with its rules. Any party aggrieved by the final\norder may, within 60 days after its entry, file a petition to\nreview the order in the court of appeals wherein venue\nlies.”). The Commission is required to resolve every appli-\ncation it receives. 47 U. S. C. §155(c)(4). The Communica-\ntions Act thus contemplates that an aggrieved party will file\nan application for review with the Commission, that the\nCommission will resolve that application by order, and that\npublic notice of that order will issue before an aggrieved\nparty may petition for further review in federal court.\n Because the candidates’ application for review was pend-\ning when they filed their petition for review, the Fourth Cir-\ncuit likely lacked statutory jurisdiction to address their\nchallenge. Its holding to the contrary splits with every\nother Circuit to have considered the issue. Council Tree\nCommunications, Inc. v. FCC, 503 F. 3d 284, 287 (CA3\n2007); Alabama Power Co. v. FCC, 311 F. 3d 1357, 1366\n(CA11 2002); International Telecard Assn. v. FCC, 166 F. 3d\n387, 388 (CADC 1999) (per curiam). Accordingly, the first\nand second stay factors weigh in favor of granting the ap-\nplication.\n The party committees have also demonstrated that they\nwill likely suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. They rep-\nresent that, in light of the Fourth Circuit’s decision—which\nthe Fourth Circuit likely lacked jurisdiction to issue—\nbroadcasters are already rescinding favorable rates. Cur-\nrent and future recissions will require the party committees\nto pay more for advertising space, thereby hampering their\nefforts to reach the electorate in the critical weeks leading\nup to the midterms. That injury, which implicates their\n=====NPS=====\n Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 1\n\n Per Curiam\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n _________________\n\n No. 26A203\n _________________\n\n\n NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL\n TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE\n UNITED STATES\n ON APPLICATION FOR STAY\n [August 31, 2026]\n\n PER CURIAM.\n In October 2025, the federal government started a project\nto replace the East Wing of the White House. The first\nphase involved the demolition of the existing East Wing,\nsomething the government completed in December 2025.\nThe next phase, currently ongoing, involves the construc-\ntion of a new East Wing, including a below-ground military\ninstallation and an above-ground ballroom.\n The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the\nUnited States (Trust) filed a lawsuit in federal district court\nchallenging various aspects of the project. As part of its\nsuit, the Trust filed a motion on March 5, 2026, seeking a\npreliminary injunction. The injunction the Trust sought fo-\ncused not on the already-completed demolition of the old\nEast Wing but on halting the ongoing construction of a new\none.\n On March 31, 2026, the district court granted the Trust’s\nmotion and issued a preliminary injunction. As later clari-\nfied, the injunction essentially permitted the government to\ncontinue work on the new below-ground military installa-\ntion but enjoined any further construction above ground,\nexcept as “strictly necessary” to protect the White House,\nthe President, and his staff. App. to Application 231a–\n233a.\n\f2 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE v. NATIONAL TRUST FOR\n HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES\n Per Curiam\n\n On April 17, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for\nthe District of Columbia Circuit stayed the district court’s\ninjunction, effectively allowing construction to proceed,\nwhile it considered the government’s appeal. On August 7,\n2026, the court of appeals resolved that appeal and upheld\nthe district court’s injunction. At the same time, the court\nindicated that its existing stay would expire on August 21,\n2026, and the district court’s injunction would thus take ef-\nfect.\n Confronted with an imminent order requiring it to sub-\nstantially halt its ongoing construction activities, the gov-\nernment filed a motion in this Court seeking a stay of the\ndistrict court’s injunction pending a forthcoming petition\nfor a writ of certiorari and any further proceedings in this\nCourt. Application 1. THE CHIEF JUSTICE issued an admin-\nistrative stay to facilitate review of the government’s appli-\ncation and referred the matter to the Court.\n We grant the requested stay. The government has estab-\nlished that it is likely to succeed on the merits of a signifi-\ncant legal question, that it would likely suffer irreparable\nharm without a stay, and that the balance of equities tips\nin its favor.\n I\n Beginning with the merits, the government is likely to\nprevail in showing that the Trust lacks standing to chal-\nlenge the East Wing project. To secure standing to sue in\nfederal court consistent with Article III of the Constitution,\na plaintiff must establish that it has suffered an “injury in\nfact”—that is, the “invasion of a legally protected interest.”\nLujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992) (in-\nternal quotation marks omitted). Further, the plaintiff\nmust demonstrate that its injury is “(a) concrete and par-\nticularized . . . and (b) actual or imminent.” Ibid. (internal\nquotation marks omitted); see also TransUnion LLC v.\n\f Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 3\n\n Per Curiam\n\nRamirez, 594 U. S. 413, 423 (2021) (“injury in fact” must be\n“concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent”).\n To establish its standing to bring this case, the Trust re-\nlies on a declaration from a single of its members, Alison K.\nHoagland. Hoagland says that she lives in Washington,\nD. C., and expects to visit the neighborhood around the\nWhite House “about once a month.” App. to Application\n73a–74a. She asserts that having to view the finished ball-\nroom the government is constructing would cause her to\nsuffer “injuries” to her “aesthetic, cultural, and historical\ninterests” because she finds the “scale,” “height,” and\n“massing” of the government’s design distasteful. Id., at\n75a. On the strength of that declaration, the Trust con-\ntends, it has Article III standing to challenge the East Wing\nproject.\n This Court has not found standing in circumstances like\nthese before. To the contrary, we have repeatedly held that\nmere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as\na concrete and particularized injury under Article III. As\nwe have put it, “this Court has long made clear that distress\nat or disagreement with the activities of others is not a basis\nunder Article III for a plaintiff to bring a federal lawsuit.”\nFDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U. S. 367,\n390, n. 3 (2024). Instead, to secure standing a plaintiff must\nidentify some concrete and particularized injury “other\nthan the psychological consequence presumably produced\nby observation of conduct with which one disagrees.” Valley\nForge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation\nof Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 485 (1982); see also\nSchlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S.\n208, 227 (1974) (rejecting “the idea that generalized citizen\ninterest is a sufficient basis for standing”); United States v.\nRichardson, 418 U. S. 166, 177 (1974) (“genuine interest”\nalone cannot satisfy the “particular concrete injury” re-\nquirement).\n\f4 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE v. NATIONAL TRUST FOR\n HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES\n Per Curiam\n\n Nor is it clear what would remain of Article III’s concrete-\nand-particularized injury requirement if we were to extend\nour case law in the manner the Trust now suggests. Per-\nhaps nearly any government action or project offends some-\none’s sensibilities. And adopting the Trust’s “unprece-\ndented and limitless” view that offense alone suffices to\nestablish a concrete and particularized injury would seem-\ningly usher in a world where “virtually every citizen had\nstanding to challenge virtually every government action\nthat they do not like—an approach to standing that this\nCourt has consistently rejected as flatly inconsistent with\nArticle III.” Alliance, 602 U. S., at 391–392. Absent some\nconsiderable revision to our existing standing doctrine,\nthen, the government is likely to succeed on the merits.\n To be sure, and as the Trust observes, we have found\nstanding in certain environmental cases where the plain-\ntiff ’s injuries involved more than mere offense. See Oppo-\nsition to Application 25; post, at 3–6 (ROBERTS, C. J., dis-\n",
"error": "",
"elapsed": 0.818437576
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"tool_input": {
"command": "cd /workspace/work && echo \"===NRCC full tail===\" && pdftotext -layout nrcc.pdf - | tail -80 && echo \"===NRCC grep dissent===\" && pdftotext -layout nrcc.pdf - | grep -n -i \"dissent\\|concur\\|JUSTICE\\|CHIEF\" | head -40"
},
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01C2Yp8xNbEJ55iAVehSwkdW",
"parent_dispatch_id": "",
"handle": "",
"panel_kind": ""
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01C2Yp8xNbEJ55iAVehSwkdW",
"status": "running",
"result": null,
"error": "",
"elapsed": null,
"fields": {
"progress": {
"message": "",
"metadata": {
"browser_chain": false,
"command": "cd /workspace/work && echo \"===NRCC full tail===\" && pdftotext -layout nrcc.pdf - | tail -80 && echo...",
"phase": "starting"
}
},
"status": "running",
"updatedAt": 1789169737530
}
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01C2Yp8xNbEJ55iAVehSwkdW",
"status": "completed",
"result": "===NRCC full tail===\ncation it receives. 47 U. S. C. §155(c)(4). The Communica-\ntions Act thus contemplates that an aggrieved party will file\nan application for review with the Commission, that the\nCommission will resolve that application by order, and that\npublic notice of that order will issue before an aggrieved\nparty may petition for further review in federal court.\n Because the candidates’ application for review was pend-\ning when they filed their petition for review, the Fourth Cir-\ncuit likely lacked statutory jurisdiction to address their\nchallenge. Its holding to the contrary splits with every\nother Circuit to have considered the issue. Council Tree\nCommunications, Inc. v. FCC, 503 F. 3d 284, 287 (CA3\n2007); Alabama Power Co. v. FCC, 311 F. 3d 1357, 1366\n(CA11 2002); International Telecard Assn. v. FCC, 166 F. 3d\n387, 388 (CADC 1999) (per curiam). Accordingly, the first\nand second stay factors weigh in favor of granting the ap-\nplication.\n The party committees have also demonstrated that they\nwill likely suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. They rep-\nresent that, in light of the Fourth Circuit’s decision—which\nthe Fourth Circuit likely lacked jurisdiction to issue—\nbroadcasters are already rescinding favorable rates. Cur-\nrent and future recissions will require the party committees\nto pay more for advertising space, thereby hampering their\nefforts to reach the electorate in the critical weeks leading\nup to the midterms. That injury, which implicates their\nFirst Amendment rights to speak and coordinate their po-\nlitical activities freely, National Republican Senatorial\n\f4 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL\n COMMITTEE v. BROWN\n Per Curiam\n\nCommittee v. FEC, 609 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2026) (slip op., at\n7–10), cannot be remedied after the fact through refunds or\nreimbursements. Like the first and second stay factors, the\nthird factor thus warrants granting the application.\n * * *\n For the foregoing reasons, the application for stay pre-\nsented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the\nCourt is granted. The mandate of the United States Court\nof Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in case No. 26–1785 is re-\ncalled and stayed pending the filing and disposition of a pe-\ntition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.\nShould certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate auto-\nmatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall\nterminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this\nCourt.\n It is so ordered.\n\f Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 1\n\n JACKSON, J., dissenting\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n _________________\n\n No. 26A274\n _________________\n\n\n NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL\n COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. SHERROD\n BROWN, ET AL.\n ON APPLICATION FOR STAY\n [September 4, 2026]\n\n JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting.\n I would deny the stay. In my view, the applicants are not\nlikely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the\nFourth Circuit lacked statutory jurisdiction. See Brown v.\nFCC, ___ F. 4th ___, ___ (CA4 2026) (Wynn, J., concurring),\nApp. 55 (concluding there is statutory jurisdiction on con-\nstructive-denial grounds because “an agency may not re-\nserve to itself the power to defeat judicial review through\ndelay or inaction”); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland,\n598 U. S. 411, 417 (2023) (explaining that the Court “rou-\ntinely” treats threshold requirements claimants must com-\nplete before filing a lawsuit as “nonjurisdictional” and has\n“yet to hold that any statutory exhaustion requirement is\njurisdictional” (internal quotation marks omitted)).\n\f===NRCC grep dissent===\n65:that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meri-\n133:sented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the\n145: JACKSON, J., dissenting\n160: JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting.\n164:FCC, ___ F. 4th ___, ___ (CA4 2026) (Wynn, J., concurring),\n",
"error": "",
"elapsed": 0.115860554
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"tool_input": {
"command": "cd /workspace/work && pdftotext -layout nps.pdf - | grep -n -i \"dissenting\\|concurring\\|joins\\|It is so ordered\" | head -40 && echo \"=== tail ===\" && pdftotext -layout nps.pdf - | sed -n '/It is so ordered/,+60p' | head -80"
},
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01PksNm5TZNsBpp8rzd4kwVz",
"parent_dispatch_id": "",
"handle": "",
"panel_kind": ""
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01PksNm5TZNsBpp8rzd4kwVz",
"status": "running",
"result": null,
"error": "",
"elapsed": null,
"fields": {
"progress": {
"message": "",
"metadata": {
"browser_chain": false,
"command": "cd /workspace/work && pdftotext -layout nps.pdf - | grep -n -i \"dissenting\\|concurring\\|joins\\|It is...",
"phase": "starting"
}
},
"status": "running",
"updatedAt": 1789169742394
}
}{
"tool_name": "shell",
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01PksNm5TZNsBpp8rzd4kwVz",
"status": "completed",
"result": "300: It is so ordered.\n303: ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting\n320:dissenting.\n345: ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting\n385: ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting\n425: ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting\n465: ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting\n505: ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting\n=== tail ===\n It is so ordered.\n\f Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 1\n\n ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting\n\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\n _________________\n\n No. 26A203\n _________________\n\n\n NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL\n TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE\n UNITED STATES\n ON APPLICATION FOR STAY\n [August 31, 2026]\n\n CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE\nSOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE JACKSON join,\ndissenting.\n The President ordered the demolition of the East Wing of\nthe White House to make way for a new, privately funded\nstate ballroom in its place. Construction of the ballroom\nhas proceeded apace for the better part of a year.\n That construction is likely unlawful. Pursuant to its ple-\nnary constitutional authority over the District of Columbia\nand federal property, Congress has explicitly prohibited the\nconstruction of any “building or structure . . . on any reser-\nvation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government\nin the District of Columbia without express authority of\nCongress.” 40 U. S. C. §8106. The ballroom is a building or\nstructure being erected on federal park grounds—Presi-\ndent’s Park—in the District of Columbia. Yet Congress has\nnot passed any law resembling “express authority” for the\nExecutive’s construction of it.\n The Government points to two statutory provisions in\nsupport of the ballroom project. The first authorizes Con-\ngress to appropriate funds for “the care, maintenance, re-\npair, alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-condition-\ning, heating, and lighting (including electric power and\nfixtures) of the Executive Residence at the White House.” 3\nU. S. C. §105(d)(1). This fiscal year Congress appropriated\n\f2 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE v. NATIONAL TRUST FOR\n HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES\n ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting\n\n$2,475,000 pursuant to section 105(d)(1) “for required\nmaintenance, resolution of safety and health issues, and\ncontinued preventative maintenance” at the Executive Res-\nidence. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, Pub. L.\n119–75, 140 Stat. 451. That appropriation of a couple mil-\nlion dollars for ordinary Executive Residence maintenance\nand repairs likely does not authorize the President to use\nhundreds of millions of dollars in private donations to tear\ndown the East Wing and construct a ballroom in its stead.\n The second provision tasks the National Park Service\nwith managing national park land, such as President’s\nPark, in a manner that “conserve[s]” the “historic objects”\non that land. 54 U. S. C. §100101(a). This is likely not ex-\npress authorization to raze the East Wing and replace it\n",
"error": "",
"elapsed": 0.121779449
}{
"tool_name": "send_message",
"tool_input": {
"final": true,
"in_response_to": "29f0d10d",
"message": "Two items posted in the last 14 days (Aug 29 to Sep 11, 2026), both per curiam stay grants. Nothing new in Opinions Relating to Orders since June 30.\n\n**[National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a274_l537.pdf)** (No. 26A274, Sept 4, 2026)\nHolding: stay granted, and the Fourth Circuit's mandate recalled and stayed. The Court found the Fourth Circuit likely lacked statutory jurisdiction because the candidates filed their petition for review while their application for review was still pending at the FCC, and 47 U.S.C. §155(c)(7) makes Commission resolution a condition precedent. It also found irreparable harm, since broadcasters were already rescinding the lowest-unit-charge ad rates before the midterms.\nVote: per curiam, with Justice Jackson the only noted dissent. She would deny the stay, reading the exhaustion requirement as nonjurisdictional.\n\n**[National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a203_2b8e.pdf)** (No. 26A203, Aug 31, 2026)\nHolding: the district court's preliminary injunction halting above-ground White House East Wing construction is stayed. The government is likely to show the Trust lacks Article III standing, because its sole member declaration alleged aesthetic distaste for the ballroom's scale and massing, and mere offense or disagreement is not a concrete, particularized injury.\nVote: 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, arguing the construction is likely unlawful under 40 U.S.C. §8106, which bars building on federal park grounds in D.C. without express congressional authority.\n\nSource: [the Court's slip opinion page](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/25)."
},
"dispatch_id": "toolu_bdrk_01L5MPDV34FKQULVcggqnXd6",
"parent_dispatch_id": "",
"handle": "",
"panel_kind": ""
}| Case | Holding | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown (No. 26A274, Sept 4) | Stay granted and Fourth Circuit mandate recalled and stayed. Court found Fourth Circuit likely lacked statutory jurisdiction because candidates filed petition for review while their FCC application was still pending, and 47 U.S.C. §155(c)(7) makes Commission resolution a condition precedent. Court also found irreparable harm since broadcasters were already rescinding lowest-unit-charge ad rates before midterms. | Per curiam, Justice Jackson dissenting. She would deny the stay, reading the exhaustion requirement as nonjurisdictional. |
| National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation (No. 26A203, Aug 31) | District court's preliminary injunction halting above-ground White House East Wing construction is stayed. Government is likely to show the Trust lacks Article III standing because its sole member declaration alleged only aesthetic distaste for the ballroom's scale and massing, and mere offense or disagreement is not a concrete, particularized injury. | 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, arguing construction is likely unlawful under 40 U.S.C. §8106, which bars building on federal park grounds in D.C. without express congressional authority. |
### Supreme Court stays, past 14 days · Slip opinions | Case | Holding | Vote | |------|---------|------| | National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown (No. 26A274, Sept 4) | Stay granted and Fourth Circuit mandate recalled and stayed. Court found Fourth Circuit likely lacked statutory jurisdiction because candidates filed petition for review while their FCC application was still pending, and 47 U.S.C. §155(c)(7) makes Commission resolution a condition precedent. Court also found irreparable harm since broadcasters were already rescinding lowest-unit-charge ad rates before midterms. | Per curiam, Justice Jackson dissenting. She would deny the stay, reading the exhaustion requirement as nonjurisdictional. | | National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation (No. 26A203, Aug 31) | District court's preliminary injunction halting above-ground White House East Wing construction is stayed. Government is likely to show the Trust lacks Article III standing because its sole member declaration alleged only aesthetic distaste for the ballroom's scale and massing, and mere offense or disagreement is not a concrete, particularized injury. | 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, arguing construction is likely unlawful under 40 U.S.C. §8106, which bars building on federal park grounds in D.C. without express congressional authority. |