The Supreme Court granted certiorari in four cases on Friday that may represent the final additions to its October 2025-26 term, breaking what court observers call a "relist logjam" of petitions that had been repeatedly considered at multiple conferences.
All four granted cases were one-time relists, meaning they had been held over from a previous conference for additional consideration. The cases span diverse areas of federal law, from agricultural tort claims to digital privacy rights.
The most closely watched case involves *Monsanto Co. v. Durnell*, which addresses whether federal law preempts state tort claims related to the popular herbicide Roundup. The case centers on the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and could determine the scope of liability protection for manufacturers of federally approved pesticides. Roundup, one of the world's most widely used herbicides, has been the subject of thousands of lawsuits alleging it causes cancer.
In the digital privacy arena, the court granted *Chatrie v. United States*, which raises the question of whether law enforcement's use of "geofence warrants" to obtain cellphone location-history data violates the Fourth Amendment. Geofence warrants allow police to request data from technology companies about all devices present in a specific geographic area during a particular time period, raising novel questions about digital surveillance and constitutional protections.
The court also accepted *Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee*, an employee benefits case that asks what plaintiffs must demonstrate to successfully plead a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The case could clarify standards for retirement plan participants seeking to hold plan administrators accountable for investment decisions.
The fourth granted case, *Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.*, involves pharmaceutical patent law and specifically addresses what types of statements can make a generic drug manufacturer liable for inducing patent infringement. The ruling could affect how generic drug companies communicate about their products and interact with brand-name manufacturers.
Beyond the cert grants, the court's Tuesday orders list included notable action in *Tennessee v. Kennedy*, where the court provided relief to Tennessee in a dispute that became moot after the Department of Health and Human Services restored funding that had previously been cut. The court vacated an adverse lower-court ruling against the state using a procedure known as Munsingwear vacatur, named after the 1950 case *United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.*
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a rare one-sentence concurrence in the Tennessee case, explaining her willingness to "accede to vacatur here" because "mootness occur[red] through the unilateral action of the party that prevailed in the lower court." Justice Jackson has previously expressed skepticism about the court's frequent use of Munsingwear vacatur to erase unfavorable precedents when cases become moot.
The orders list brought disappointing news for most other petitioners. The court denied review in *Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation*, a one-time relist case involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's expropriation exception. The case had attracted attention for its implications regarding sovereign immunity and international law.
Perhaps most notably, the court denied review in 76 of 78 relisted cases challenging federal prohibitions on felon firearm possession under the Second Amendment. This mass denial suggests the court is not eager to revisit this area of gun rights law, at least not through these particular vehicles.
Curiously, the court left two similar Second Amendment cases on its docket: *Vincent v. Bondi* and *Thompson v. United States*. Legal observers note this is unusual, as the court typically would hold similar cases if there were realistic prospects for granting review in any of them. The retention of these two cases while denying 76 others raises questions about their ultimate fate.
The four granted cases add to what is already shaping up to be a consequential term for the Supreme Court. With Friday's grants potentially representing the final additions to the October 2025-26 docket, the court appears to have assembled a diverse array of cases touching on corporate liability, digital privacy, employment law, and pharmaceutical regulation.
The cases will likely be argued in the spring of 2026, with decisions expected by the end of June 2026. Each presents the court with opportunities to clarify important areas of federal law that affect millions of Americans, from farmers and workers to technology users and patients relying on generic medications.