The upcoming Supreme Court term is set to bring a series of significant criminal law cases that have drawn attention for their potential impact. Among the cases, those focusing on firearm regulations, jury compositions, and the concept of excessive fines stand out. Notably, cases such as Viramontes v. Cook County and Kian v. Florida raise critical constitutional questions regarding semi-automatic rifle bans and jury size requirements, respectively.
- Viramontes v. Cook County: Scheduled for December 2, this case tackles whether legislatures can ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 under the Second Amendment. It poses the question if the phrase “in common use” within District of Columbia v. Heller pertains to the present day rather than when the Second Amendment was adopted.
- Kian v. Florida: Unscheduled yet crucial, it questions whether the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial mandates a 12-person jury rather than a smaller one, a topic persisted by Justice Neil Gorsuch who argues historical context supports this composition.
- Jouppi v. Alaska: This December 1 case confronts the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause, examining whether it should be judged abstractly or in the context of a defendant’s specific actions.
A noteworthy concern is the Supreme Court’s capacity to address lower court disagreements or circuit splits, which a Congressional Research Service report indicates are significant, particularly within criminal law and procedure. The report highlights 28 unsettled circuit splits, thus providing the Court substantial opportunity to ensure national legal consistency.
Despite these high-profile issues, the Supreme Court’s docket has significantly reduced over the years, deciding fewer cases per term than in the past. Chief Justice John Roberts once remarked on the Court’s capacity to hear more cases centered around circuit splits. This sentiment underscores a call for the Court to undertake more such reviews to achieve federal uniformity, particularly in criminal cases, a move that many argue should be a Court priority.
The term is poised to address various other jurisprudential questions extending from official commentary deference in sentencing guidelines to the viability of Bivens-related claims. As these cases unfold, the coming months could redefine core aspects of criminal law, underscoring the need for Supreme Court engagement with unresolved jurisprudential splits.