Supreme Court Roundup: Insights from June 18 and 20 Decisions and New Cert Grant

In today's episode, we analyze the Supreme Court's recent activities across three key areas: Last week's 11 opinions and emerging patterns Term statistics and remaining docket overview Major religious liberty case granted certiorari via June 23rd Order List Key Topics Covered Term Statistics (As of June 23, 2025) Total cases heard: 62 unique cases this term Cases decided: 52 (approximately 84%) Cases pending: 11 (approximately 16%) Methodology: Consolidated cases counted once Last Week's Opinion Analysis Unanimous consensus: 7 of 11 cases showed stable coalition of seven justices Opinion distribution: Justice Thomas, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Barrett each authored exactly 4 opinions Chief Justice Roberts: Finally joined dissent after 41 consecutive majority opinions Methodological splits: Justices divided on simple textual approaches vs. complex multi-factor tests Featured Case Deep Dive: Esteras v. United States Issue: Whether judges can consider retribution in supervised release decisions Majority (Barrett): Applied "expressio unius" canon - Congress deliberately excluded retribution Dissent (Alito/Gorsuch): Criticized majority's "mind-bending exercises" for trial judges Vote: 7-2 with additional splintering on implementation details Standing Doctrine Analysis: FDA v. Reynolds & Diamond Energy v. EPA Common thread: When can businesses challenge regulations affecting market participants? Identical 7-2 splits with completely different reasoning approaches Barrett's approach: Traditional statutory interpretation and precedent analysis Kavanaugh's approach: Practical economic reasoning and regulatory dynamics Certiorari Grant: Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections | Case No. 23-1197 | Docket Link: Here . Question Presented: Whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) permits individual-capacity damages suits against state prison officials who violate prisoners' religious exercise rights. The Shocking Facts Petitioner: Damon Landor, devout Rastafarian with 20-year religious dreadlocks Incident: Prison officials threw away Fifth Circuit decision protecting his rights, then forcibly shaved his head Timeline: Occurred with just 3 weeks left in his sentence Legal precedent: Clear violation of Ware v. Louisiana Department of Corrections Legal Framework RFRA (1993): Applies to federal government; Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) permits individual damages RLUIPA (2000): Applies to state/local governments receiving federal funds Sister statutes: Nearly identical language and purposes Circuit split: All courts of appeals currently reject RLUIPA individual damages Petitioner’s (Landor) Key Arguments: Tanzin controls: Identical "appropriate relief" language must have same meaning Sister statute harmony: Supreme Court routinely interprets RFRA/RLUIPAtogether Constitutional authority: Spending Clause permits individual liability under Dole test Practical necessity: Damages often only meaningful remedy for released prisoners Respondent’s (Louisiana) Key Arguments: No circuit split: Unanimous rejection across all circuits Spending Clause limits: Only grant recipients (states) can be liable, not individual officials Sossamon precedent: "Appropriate relief" is "ambiguous" under RLUIPA Practical concerns: Would worsen prison staffing crisis and destabilize Title IX law United States Key Arguments: Supports petitioner - significant federal government backing Argues Sossamon only addressed sovereign immunity, not individual officials Emphasizes Congress's clear Spending Clause authority Remaining Docket Highlights Constitutional Powder Kegs Trump v. Casa trilogy: Immigration enforcement and nationwide injunctions Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: Online adult content restrictions vs. child protection Voting Rights Crucible Louisiana v. Callais: Racial gerrymandering vs. Voting Rights Act compliance Religious Liberty Battleground Mahmoud v. Taylor: Religious exercise vs. LGBTQ+ curricula in schools Support the Podcast: If you found this analysis helpful, please subscribe, rate, and share this podcast. Your support helps us continue providing in-depth Supreme Court coverage.