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.
Looking across the petitions currently tracked on SCOTUSblog’s designated petitions page, we can see some patterns about what types of cases the court may be interested in hearing in the 2026-27 term.
First, the relist numbers (that is, cases considered at multiple conferences – which can mean the court is seriously considering taking these up) are unusually high this term. Of the relisted cases, several have been relisted eight or more times – a level of sustained conference attention that historically correlates strongly with an eventual grant. Smith v. Scott, about whether police officers’ use of force to restrain a suspect violated the Fourth Amendment, leads at 17 relists, a figure that almost never appears for petitions that are eventually denied.
Second, the amount of Second Amendment cases is larger and more coordinated than anything seen since the post-Bruen term (in which the court found that one had a right to carry a concealed firearm) began working through its downstream cases. Five petitions from different circuits, involving both magazine capacity restrictions and assault-style rifle bans, are pending simultaneously.
Third, a set of parental-rights cases is building alongside the more visible Second Amendment ones, and the relist numbers there – 11 for Foote v. Ludlow School Committee (concerning whether a school district violated a couple’s parental rights when it encouraged their child to transition to a different gender identity), with nine amicus briefs filed at the cert stage – suggest the court has been doing something more than giving routine consideration to these cases.
What follows works through these petitions, those carrying the strongest likelihood of being granted, and a separate look at the earlier-stage petitions where the data is thinner, to try and get an understanding of what might be heard next term.
What’s covered
The analysis is based on a comprehensive tracker of pending cert petitions across four categories: relisted cases, petitions set for the next conference, featured petitions (by SCOTUSblog), and calls for the views of the solicitor general. Each case is assessed using a weighted formula that treats relist count as the most important factor, then layers in circuit split confirmation, dissents below, CVSG status, whether the solicitor general is a petitioner, amicus activity at the cert stage, and counsel quality to determine which cases are most likely to be granted.
The clusters
The Second Amendment cluster
The broadest story on the current docket is the accumulation of Second Amendment petitions, all pressing variations of the same question left open after the 2022 case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen: what categories of commonly owned firearms and accessories fall within the Second Amendment’s protection?
The strongest vehicle in this cluster, based on the current data, is Duncan v. Bonta, on whether states can ban large-capacity magazines. Duncan has been relisted 11 times, has a confirmed en banc dissent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit below, presents a genuine circuit split on magazine capacity restrictions, and is represented by Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy. The petition also carries a takings clause hook, challenging the requirement that owners dispossess themselves of lawfully acquired magazines without compensation. Five amicus briefs were filed at the cert stage. Across every dimension the model weighs, Duncan is a strong contender for cert.
Viramontes v. Cook County presents the assault-style rifle question directly – whether the Second and 14th Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15 platform rifles in common use. David Thompson of Cooper & Kirk represents the petitioner, the case has been relisted 11 times, and SCOTUSblog has featured it as a case to watch. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued the opinion below as a per curiam on June 2, 2025, with no dissent – which, while not a negative signal, means the case lacks the additional cert indicator that a written dissent would provide. What gives the petition its force is the acknowledged four-to-seven circuit split on assault weapon bans and the weight of the relist count.
Grant v. Higgins presents the same assault-style rifle question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, also represented by Thompson and Cooper & Kirk, and relisted six times. The two cases are direct companions. If the court grants Viramontes, it will almost certainly hold Grant pending the outcome in the former case or consolidate them.
The large capacity magazine side of the cluster has two additional petitions: Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, a Washington Supreme Court vehicle with 11 relists and Erin Murphy as counsel again, and NAGR v. Lamont, which combines the assault rifle and LCM questions in a single 2nd Circuit petition, relisted six times.
The court is unlikely to grant all of these cases. Based on the relist clustering, the most plausible scenario is that the court grants one of the rifle cases and one of the magazine cases – though which it selects is not something the available data can resolve.
The parental rights cases
Two cases are building toward what may become the term’s most significant ruling outside of the Second Amendment context.
Foote v. Ludlow School Committee asks whether a public school violates parents’ constitutional rights when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to socially transition to a different gender identity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled against the parents in February 2025. The petition has been relisted 12 times, nine amicus briefs have been filed at the cert stage – an unusually high number – and Alliance Defending Freedom represents the petitioners through John Bursch. A companion case, Lee v. Poudre School District R-1, is pending from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on a similar question.
Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County comes from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and presents a related but distinct constitutional question: whether parental-rights claims challenging school gender identity policies require the demanding “shocks the conscience” test or a less rigid standard. Judge Gerald Tjoflat dissented from the majority opinion siding with the school, calling the decision “as wrong as it is ominous.” Cameron Norris of Consovoy McCarthy represents the petitioners, and Florida, joined by 21 other states, filed an amicus brief. The case has not yet been relisted – relist count is the strongest single factor in terms of cert possibility, and its absence keeps Littlejohn a tier below Foote for now. But the Tjoflat dissent and multi-state amicus coalition make this one of the cases most worth tracking as it moves through the conference cycle.
Other candidates
Beyond the clusters above, three individual cases also stand out as cert contenders.
As noted earlier, Smith v. Scott has been relisted 17 times. That figure is not common and almost never appears for petitions that are eventually denied. The case asks whether officers acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment in using pre-handcuffing bodyweight pressure on a potentially armed individual resisting arrest, and whether qualified immunity was properly denied when no prior case clearly established a violation. Megan Wold of Cooper & Kirk represents the petitioner. The court has also requested the record of the case twice (which shows obvious interest in it from at least some of the justices). A petition at 16 relists with record requests is, in the historical pattern, headed toward either a grant or a summary disposition (judgment without oral argument or full briefing) – though there is no guarantee of either.
District of Columbia v. R.W. has been relisted nine times, with the District of Columbia as the petitioner and the respondent having initially waived opposition. The case raises a Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion question – specifically, whether that analysis may exclude facts known to the officer at the time of the stop. A government petitioner, eight relists, and a recurring Fourth Amendment methodology question together make this a case to watch.
Poore v. United States asks how prior precedent constrains deference to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of its own Guidelines commentary – a question that has divided circuits. Neal Katyal of Milbank LLP represents the petitioner and the case has been relisted nine times, with a related petition in Beaird v. United States also pending. The solicitor general has opposed certiorari, which is a genuine counterweight. But nine relists with elite counsel on a developed circuit split is a pattern associated with eventual review.
St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy explicitly asks the court to overrule the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith, one the court’s most important free exercise cases. The Becket Fund’s Eric Rassbach represents the petitioner, 10 amicus briefs were filed at the cert stage and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch have each written separately about their interest in revisiting Smith. It has been relisted one time.
The CVSG and solicitor general brief watch
Several petitions on the docket have received calls for the views of the solicitor general. Historically, roughly 70-75% of cases that receive a CVSG are eventually granted.
Does 1-2 v. Hochul asks whether a New York law that effectively mandates denial of all religious accommodations to healthcare workers is preempted by Title VII’s accommodation requirement for religious beliefs. Five amicus briefs have been filed.
On the administrative law side, Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards is a solicitor general petition asking whether Article III precludes Congress from assigning H-2A visa penalty adjudications to the Labor Department rather than an Article III court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held this unconstitutional. This is a first-conference petition; a solicitor general’s petition challenging a circuit decision that invalidated a federal statute is something the court frequently takes up, but it often needs time to develop.
The earlier-stage petitions
Then there are petitions I’ve tracked that are at or near their first conference and have not yet accumulated a relist history. The most predictive variable that a case will be granted, relist count, is effectively zero for all of them.
That does not mean, however, they are unlikely to be granted. It means the court has not yet signaled anything meaningful about them, or in some cases has only just begun to do so. Several carry certain features – elite cert counsel, confirmed circuit splits, government petitioners, sophisticated amicus coalitions – that in other contexts would be associated with serious cert consideration.
A few worth flagging within this group: Johnson v. United States presents a clean Jardines follow-up dealing with apartment door drug-detection dog sniffs, with a confirmed circuit split and Skadden arguing below. Youth 71Five Ministries v. Williams brings a free exercise question with Alliance Defending Freedom at the cert stage and six amicus briefs filed. Johnson & Johnson Consumer v. Noohi raises a class-certification issue with a five-amicus coalition including elite counsel and the Chamber of Commerce. AstraZeneca v. Kennedy represents a constitutional challenge to the Inflation Reduction Act’s drug-pricing negotiation program with significant industry backing. And Margolin v. NAIJ is a solicitor general petition on immigration judges’ union speech which previously appeared on the emergency docket.
Of course, these case could be denied at the next conference, or could begin accumulating relists. In late spring, we will revisit where they have landed.
The post What cases might the court grant next? appeared first on SCOTUSblog.