Usually the Supreme Court issues an order list the day after the last opinions are handed down. Today we got the so-called “mop-up” order list a few hours after Barbara dropped. I guess the Justices really wanted to get out of dodge before Independence Day. We should never forget who is really in charge.
First, the Court GVR’d Petersen v. Doe. This case, which concerns the Arizona Save Woman’s Sports Act, has been stuck in purgatory for nearly two years. John Sauer, while still in private practice, filed the cert petition in October 2024. Briefing concluded in January 2025. The case was then held until June 23, 2025 for Skrmetti. Then, the case was held until today, June 30, 2026, for B.J.P. And the Court GVR’d the case in light of B.J.P. I can’t recall when a petition was held for two terms for two separate merits cases, only to be GVR’d. I am just going to go out on a limb and predict the Ninth Circuit will find a way to distinguish B.J.P. and this case will be stuck in another two years of litigation. A preliminary injunction was granted in July 2023. This case likely will not make it back to the Court until 2028 at the earliest. Justice delayed is nevermind. Speaking of delays…
Second, the Court (finally) granted cert in a pair of cases concerning bans on AR-15s. These cases have been hanging around for a long time. Cutberto Viramontes v. Cook County, a case from Illinois, was initially filed in August 2025. It was relisted 21 times. Per John Elwood it was reslisted “after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20, Feb. 27, Mar. 6, Mar. 20, Mar. 27, Apr. 2, Apr. 17, Apr. 24, May 1, May 14, May 21, May 28, June 4, June 11, June 18, and June 25 conferences.” I can’t recall a case that was granted this many times after a relist. (I think there were some cases relisted more followed by a GVR or denial.) Perhaps Wolford was holding this case up? Well, I’m glad we finally get a grant here. Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented on an AR-15 case more than a decade ago. Glad the Justices finally got around to this pressing issue, as millions of Americans had their Second Amendment rights infringed. Good thing we figured out whether marijuana users get to bear arms first! As I’ll explain in a new piece, the Second Amendment jurisprudence has had only a marginal effect on gun owners in blue states. This case will actually make a difference. Relatedly, the Court denied cert in NRA v. Glass, which challenges Florida’s ban on firearms for 18-20 year olds. (The Florida AG has argued this statute is unconstitutional, so this case is not the best vehicle.)
Third, the Court denied a stay in Perlmutter. The SG’s “emergency” application has been pending since November 2025. I suspect the Chief hopes that Slaughter makes this case go away. I’m sure the D.C. Circuit will find a way to distinguish the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office as outside the executive branch.
Fourth, the Court CVSG’d Roybal v. Griffith, which involves sex-based housing and strip searches of transgender prisoners. As the petition notes, the Tenth Circuit ruled that prisons cannot “house a biologically male inmate with unaltered male anatomy alongside male inmates if the inmate expresses a female identity.” The court further held that “absent emergencies, male officers cannot search biologically male inmates who self-identify as female.” This case strikes me as far easier than B.J.P. I wonder if any female prisoner rights groups file in support of the government here–they should. Moreover, this case might give the Court another shot at revisiting Johnson v. California, which keeps getting cited in the context of affirmative action cases.
Fifth, the Court a pro se petition in Grand v. University Heights. This case presents a recurring issue for Jewish people where the government restricts small congregations to worship in a private home. My organization, the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, filed an amicus brief. Here is how we framed the issue:
This Petition presents a simple but consequential question: may government officials circumvent RLUIPA by burdening religious exercise through denial by delay—via serial continuances, shifting demands, and procedural limbo—while insisting that nothing is ripe for judicial review because they have not yet said “no” in a final vote? The decision below effectively blesses that Kafkaesque regime, allowing officials to block religious use of property and then wield the absence of a formal denial to keep federal courts from hearing the merits at all. That rule is especially dangerous for Muslims, Jews, and other minority faith communities, which have long faced disproportionate resistance in zoning processes that appear neutral on paper but operate as instruments of exclusion in practice. In that setting, delay amounts to more than mere administrative inconvenience. It means missed worship, mounting costs, and the practical denial of the right to use one’s own property for religious exercise.
This case may not be high-profile, but could be a significant victory for religious liberty.
Much more to come later.
