The Supreme Court appears to have completed its oral argument docket for the 2025-26 term after granting certiorari Monday in Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case involving interpretation of federal video privacy protections enacted in 1988.
The court's decision to hear Salazar without expedited briefing signals the case will likely be argued next term rather than this one, according to court watchers who noted the absence of scheduling details typically included when cases are fast-tracked for current-term argument.
"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted," the order list stated, without the expedited briefing schedule that would be expected if justices planned to hear argument in Salazar this term.
The case centers on interpretation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, a federal law passed in 1988 intended to protect videotape rental histories from public disclosure. The law was enacted following public disclosure of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental records during his confirmation hearings.
With the Salazar grant, the court's current term docket stands at 59 oral arguments across 64 cases. This total accounts for one dismissal—Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas—and 10 consolidated cases that will be heard together.
The 59-argument total represents the lowest number of cases the court will hear in three years. The court heard 62 arguments in the 2024-25 term and 61 in the 2023-24 term, after previously hearing 59 in the 2022-23 term.
Some court observers had expected justices to add additional cases to reach the low-60s range typical of recent terms. However, Monday's order list appears to have dispelled that possibility, suggesting the justices are comfortable with the current docket size.
The court's standard briefing schedule creates practical deadlines that effectively determine when cases can be heard. Under normal procedures, petitioners have up to 45 days after the Supreme Court grants review to file their brief on the merits. Respondents then have 30 days to file their response, followed by petitioners having 30 days for a reply brief, though that final brief must be submitted at least 10 days before oral argument.
Counting backward from the court's final regularly scheduled argument session in April, cases generally need to be granted by mid-January to allow full briefing under the standard schedule. This timing constraint makes it unlikely the court would add additional cases for this term without expedited procedures.
The court occasionally grants cases with expedited briefing schedules when dealing with particularly urgent or high-profile matters. However, the absence of such scheduling modifications in recent order lists suggests justices are satisfied with the current docket composition.
The Video Privacy Protection Act at issue in Salazar reflects early congressional attention to digital privacy concerns, predating many modern privacy debates by decades. The law prohibits video rental companies from disclosing customer rental records without written consent, establishing one of the first federal digital privacy protections.
Paramount Global's involvement in the case suggests potential questions about how the 1988 law applies to modern streaming services and digital content delivery, though specific details of the dispute were not included in Monday's announcement.
The case will join a docket that includes several other technology-related disputes and questions about federal regulatory authority. The court's willingness to take up digital privacy issues demonstrates continued judicial attention to how existing laws apply to evolving technology platforms.
The Supreme Court's term typically runs from October through June, with oral arguments generally scheduled from October through April. The justices use the spring and summer months to complete opinion writing and release decisions in argued cases.
With 59 arguments scheduled, the current term represents a manageable caseload that allows thorough consideration of each dispute. The court has discretionary jurisdiction over most cases, meaning justices can be selective about which disputes merit full review and oral argument.
The completion of the argument docket allows court observers to analyze the term's major themes and potential impacts. Cases involving constitutional interpretation, federal regulatory authority, and emerging technology issues dominate the current schedule.
Unless the court decides to grant review and expedite a particularly urgent case, the 2025-26 term oral argument schedule appears set. The justices will now focus on hearing arguments in scheduled cases and preparing opinions that could significantly impact American law across multiple areas.