As the 2025-26 term of the Supreme Court comes to a close, the justices gathered for their final conference to address cases that had been “relisted” post their previous scheduled conference. In what is commonly referred to as the “mop-up” or “clean-up” conference, a total of 30 petitions and applications were under consideration. Among these, significant cases involve Second Amendment rights, appeal waivers, antitrust issues stemming from the tech industry, state legislation on animal welfare, and religious land use.
Several cases pertain to gun laws, particularly those affecting individuals aged 18 to 20. Some of these cases include challenges to Florida’s law banning gun purchases by 18-to-20-year-olds (National Rifle Association v. Glass) and federal laws banning handgun purchases by the same age group from federally licensed dealers (McCoy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives). These cases may require further review in light of United States v. Hemani, which addressed similar Second Amendment concerns.
In the realm of appeal waivers, noteworthy cases include identical Jones v. United States cases. These relate to whether agreements by criminal defendants not to appeal are enforceable, following the recent decision in Hunter v. United States, which highlighted conditions where such waivers can be overturned.
Antitrust legal precedents concerning the tech industry are also under scrutiny as Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. resurfaces, questioning the scope of injunctions and contempt in antitrust remedies. Meanwhile, Triumph Foods v. Campbell addresses the boundaries of state laws like Massachusetts’ ban on certain pork sales vis-à-vis federal law.
Grand v. City of University Heights highlights issues of religious freedom, examining whether threats of zoning violations can chill First Amendment rights in religious practices.
For further details on the cases addressed at the conference, please visit the Supreme Court conference summary. As the term concludes, these cases signify critical areas where legal interpretations and constitutional questions continue to evolve, setting precedents for future terms.