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.