{"id":501607,"date":"2026-03-03T17:20:11","date_gmt":"2026-03-03T17:20:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/501607\/"},"modified":"2026-03-03T17:20:11","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T17:20:11","slug":"deja-vu-all-over-again","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/501607\/","title":{"rendered":"D\u00e9j\u00e0 vu all over again"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has \u201crelisted\u201d for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court is continuing to chip away at its relist backlog, though not exactly at warp speed. The justices denied review in three such cases<\/a> on Monday. Most notably, they closed the book (for now) on the remaining Second Amendment challenges to the federal ban on felons possessing firearms. In late January, the court denied review<\/a> in 76 of the 78 petitions then pending that raised that issue. Monday, it disposed of the final two holdouts \u2013 Vincent v. Bondi<\/a> and Thompson v. United States<\/a> \u2013 without comment. For those keeping score at home, that makes it a clean sweep.<\/p>\n

The court also denied review in Johnson v. High Desert State Prison<\/a>, which asked whether indigent prisoners pursuing a joint civil action may divide the $350 filing fee among themselves. Justice Elena Kagan noted that she would have granted review, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the denial<\/a>. They argued that prohibiting fee-splitting is both legally incorrect and functionally shuts the courthouse doors to prisoners who typically earn between 13 cents and $1.30 per hour. It takes only four votes to grant review; it\u2019s noteworthy that none of the remaining six justices was willing to provide the fourth vote as a courtesy.<\/p>\n

There is just one new relist this week, but it has a distinctly familiar feel. Kendrick Jarrell Beaird was spotted pointing his Glock pistol at someone at an abandoned fast-food restaurant. That\u2019s never a good idea, particularly when, like Beaird, you\u2019re a former felon and prohibited from possessing firearms. Beaird was convicted and because his Glock had a full 17-round magazine, his sentence was enhanced because the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines increase the base offense level if the firearm is capable of accepting a \u201clarge capacity magazine,\u201d and the Sentencing Commission\u2019s official commentary defines that term to include magazines holding more than 15 rounds.<\/p>\n

In Beaird v. United States<\/a>, petitioner presses three claims. First, he raises the now-standard argument that the felon-in-possession statute violates the Second Amendment. Because his prior convictions include violent offenses, he cannot credibly pursue the more sympathetic as-applied-to-nonviolent-felons theory; instead, he must argue the statute is facially unconstitutional (that is, the statute is unconstitutional across the board). Given Monday\u2019s denials in Vincent and Thompson, that argument appears to face long odds.<\/p>\n

Second, and more interestingly, Beaird challenges the Sentencing Guidelines enhancement. He contends that the Supreme Court\u2019s 2019 decision in Kisor v. Wilkie<\/a> \u2013 which somewhat curtailed deference to agencies\u2019 interpretations of their own regulations \u2013 undermines the earlier case of Stinson v. United States<\/a>, which held that the Sentencing Guidelines commentary controls unless it is \u201cplainly erroneous or inconsistent\u201d with the text. The courts of appeals remain divided on how much Kisor trims Stinson, though many \u2013 including the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd<\/a> and 9th<\/a> Circuits \u2013 have concluded that the \u201clarge capacity magazine\u201d commentary survives. That broader deference question is currently pending before the court in five-time relist Poore v. United States<\/a>. If the court is inclined to say anything further about Stinson\u2019s vitality, Beaird could be a way to do so \u2013 but because this particular commentary may satisfy Kisor, it would likely ride in tandem with (or trail behind) Poore.<\/p>\n

Finally, Beaird renews the perennial commerce clause argument: that Congress lacks authority to criminalize possession of a firearm based solely on the fact that it crossed state lines at some point in the past. He urges the court to reconsider precedents approving that minimal nexus in light of more recent federalism decisions that require a showing of an affect on commerce. The court has repeatedly declined similar invitations, and is likely to do so here.<\/p>\n

The government opposes certiorari across the board, emphasizing the court\u2019s recent denials on each issue and arguing that Beaird is a poor vehicle in any event (perhaps particularly because he reportedly told police he was trying to sell the gun, which tends to strengthen the commerce nexus).<\/p>\n

That\u2019s all for this week!<\/p>\n

New Relists<\/p>\n

Beaird v. United States<\/a>, 25-5343<\/a><\/p>\n

Issues: (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment; (2) whether Stinson v. United States<\/a> still accurately state the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines; and (3) whether 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, whether it is facially unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

Returning Relists<\/p>\n

Smith v. Scott<\/a>, 24-1099<\/a><\/p>\n

Issues: (1) Whether, viewing the facts from the officers\u2019 perspective at the time, the officers acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment by using bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially armed and actively resisting individual only until handcuffing could be accomplished; and (2) whether the panel erred in denying qualified immunity where no case clearly established that pre-handcuffing bodyweight pressure violates the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Sept. 29, Oct. 10, Oct. 17, Nov. 7, Nov. 14, Nov. 21, Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Foote v. Ludlow School Committee<\/a>, 25-77<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether a public school violates parents\u2019 constitutional rights when, without parental knowledge or consent, the school encourages a student to transition to a new \u201cgender\u201d or participates in that process.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Nov. 21, Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Fields v. Plappert<\/a>, 23-6912<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether the requirement that a verdict be based only on the evidence presented in the courtroom at trial satisfies\u00a028 U.S.C. \u00a7 2254(d)(1)<\/a>\u2018s \u201cclearly established\u201d requirement, and if so, whether a jury\u2019s consideration of and reliance on extrinsic evidence as part of a jury experiment violates this rule.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9 and Jan. 16 conferences; now being held for consideration of response to Fields\u2019 rehearing petition.)<\/p>\n

Reed v. Goertz<\/a>, 24-1268<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether\u00a0Article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure<\/a>, as authoritatively construed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, violates due process by arbitrarily denying prisoners access to postconviction DNA testing, rendering illusory prisoners\u2019 state-created right to prove their innocence through newly discovered evidence.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Gator\u2019s Custom Guns, Inc. v. Washington<\/a>, 25-153<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to hold more than ten rounds are \u201cArms\u201d presumptively entitled to constitutional protection under the plain text of the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Duncan v. Bonta<\/a>, 25-198<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: (1) Whether a ban on the possession of exceedingly common ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens, without compensation, of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Viramontes v. Cook County<\/a>, 25-238<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Zorn v. Linton<\/a>, 25-297<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether the Second Circuit\u2019s qualified immunity analysis conflicts with this court\u2019s repeated instruction that courts must define rights with specificity and look for close factual analogues in determining whether a Fourth Amendment right is clearly established.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Dec. 5, Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Villarreal v. Alaniz<\/a>, 25-29<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: (1) Whether it obviously violates the First Amendment to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing the information they volunteer; and (2) whether qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials who use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment, or whether qualified immunity shields those officials.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16 and Jan. 23 conferences; record requested and now held awaiting arrival.)<\/p>\n

Sittenfeld v. United States<\/a>, 25-49<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether, when the government alleges bribery based solely on lawful campaign contributions, the defendant may be convicted based on evidence that is ambiguous as to whether the public official conditioned any official act on the campaign contributions.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Dec. 12, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Poore v. United States<\/a>, 25-227<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether the limits on agency deference announced in\u00a0Kisor v. Wilkie<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo<\/a>\u00a0constrain the deference courts may accord the U.S. Sentencing Commission\u2019s interpretation of its own rules via commentary.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

District of Columbia v. R.W.<\/a>, 25-248<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: (1) Whether a court assessing the existence of reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment may exclude a fact known to the officer, or instead must assess all the evidence when weighing the totality of the circumstances; and (2) whether, under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the officer in this case had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission<\/a>, 25-382<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether Oklahoma may tax the income of a Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizen who lives and works within the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation that\u00a0McGirt v. Oklahoma<\/a>\u00a0held remains Indian country.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga<\/a>, 25-430<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether dismissal of a claim after assertion of the state-secrets privilege requires a district court to adjudicate the merits of the claim using the privileged information where the privileged information is relevant to a defense.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 23, Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont<\/a>, 25-421<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Grant v. Higgins<\/a>, 25-566<\/a><\/p>\n

Issue: Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the AR-15.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan<\/a>, 25-579<\/a><\/p>\n

Issues: (1) Whether the federal government\u2019s submission to a state or territorial regulator of an application to renew a\u00a0Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976<\/a>\u00a0permit is \u201cfinal agency action\u201d that is immediately reviewable under the\u00a0Administrative Procedure Act<\/a>; and (2) whether the federal government must comply with the general environmental-review procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969<\/a>, before submitting a permit-renewal application under RCRA, which sets forth its own specific procedures to review environmental impacts in the context of hazardous-waste treatment.<\/p>\n

(Relisted after the Feb. 20 and Feb. 27 conferences.)<\/p>\n

Cases: Beaird v. United States<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRecommended Citation:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJohn Elwood,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tD\u00e9j\u00e0 vu all over again,
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSCOTUSblog (Mar. 3, 2026, 11:09 AM),
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\thttps:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2026\/03\/deja-vu-all-over-again\/\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has \u201crelisted\u201d for its upcoming conference. A…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":501608,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[23,3,21,19,22,20,25,24],"class_list":{"0":"post-501607","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-states","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-news","10":"tag-united-states","11":"tag-united-states-of-america","12":"tag-unitedstates","13":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","14":"tag-us","15":"tag-usa"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/501607","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=501607"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/501607\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/501608"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=501607"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=501607"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=501607"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}