November 10, 2025
U.S. Supreme Court in Preview: Crucial Cases to Watch for 2025-26
BY: Nathan Moelker 1
As young lawyers navigating an evolving legal landscape, staying informed about Supreme Court developments isn't just good practice, it's essential. The 2025-2026 term, which began in October, features several cases with far-reaching implications for Virginia practitioners across multiple practice areas. Certain high-profile cases regarding tariffs, redistricting, and other important political issues are on everyone’s radar, but there are some more crucial cases that we need to be aware of that will affect many Virginia lawyers, politically active or not.
Religious Liberty: Prison Officials and RLUIPA Damages
In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections,2 the Court examines whether individuals can sue government officials in their personal capacity for damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Damon Landor, a Rastafarian inmate, wore dreadlocks as part of his religious practice. Despite a Fifth Circuit ruling protecting this right, prison officials forcibly shaved his head with just three weeks left in his sentence. Lower courts condemned this treatment but ruled that RLUIPA does not allow former prisoners to sue individual officials for monetary damages. This case determines whether religious freedom protections in prisons have meaningful enforcement mechanisms. It also determines whether other beneficiaries of RLUIPA, such as churches and synagogues, have a remedy to pursue when their rights are violated. RLUIPA’s rights affect all of us and this case will have significant effects.
Religious Liberty and Free Speech: Access to Public Spaces
Olivier v. City of Brandon,3 addresses whether individuals previously convicted under a law can later challenge its constitutionality in civil rights lawsuits. Gabriel Olivier was sharing his faith near a public amphitheater when Brandon, Mississippi police cited a city ordinance requiring "protests" to occur in a remote designated area. After being convicted for violating the ordinance, Olivier sought an injunction to prevent future enforcement. The Fifth Circuit barred his lawsuit under the Heck bar, creating a legal catch-22: if he challenges the law before prosecution, the threat seems speculative; if he waits until after conviction, courts say it's too late. This case has massive implications for First Amendment litigation and civil rights enforcement under Section 1983. The decision will clarify when individuals can seek prospective relief from unconstitutional laws, affecting protesters, religious speakers, and activists across the political spectrum.
Criminal Procedure: Right to Counsel During Testimony
In Villareal v. Texas,4 the Court is considering whether a trial court violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and counsel from discussing testimony during an overnight recess. David Villareal was convicted of murder after a judge ordered a 24-hour recess during his testimony and instructed him not to discuss his testimony with his attorneys during that time. This case addresses the fundamental scope of the right to counsel during trial. It will affect all attorneys, including especially criminal defense attorneys.
Fourth Amendment: Emergency Home Entry
Case v. Montana5 examines whether law enforcement can enter a home without a warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring. This case will affect how law enforcement responds to welfare checks and emergency calls, and could prove to be a very significant decision affecting fundamental rights and criminal defense.
Civil Procedure: Setting Aside Void Judgments
In Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton,6 the Court will decide whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit on setting aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. This case addresses fundamental questions about finality in civil litigation and when judgments can be challenged. Even though a decision about federal civil procedure, it could have a strong persuasive value in state courts too.
Government Contractor Liability
Hencely v. Fluor Corporation7 considers whether government contractors can be sued under state tort law for employee conduct. The case arises from a suicide bombing on a U.S. military base in Afghanistan by an employee of a defense contractor. This decision will determine the scope of immunity for government contractors and could significantly affect liability exposure for companies working with federal and state governments. Justices brought up Virginia installations as examples in the oral argument, and this decision could have an important effect in Virginia.
First Amendment: Donor Privacy and Access to Federal Courts
First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin8 presents fundamental questions about donor privacy, associational rights, and access to federal courts. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a sweeping subpoena demanding First Choice, a pregnancy resource center, disclose donor names, phone numbers, addresses, employment information, and up to 10 years of internal confidential documents. When First Choice challenged the subpoena in federal court as a violation of First Amendment associational rights, both the district court and Third Circuit ruled the organization must first litigate its federal constitutional claims in state court—creating a procedural barrier to federal judicial review. The case has generated remarkable support from organizations across the ideological spectrum. The U.S. government, the ACLU, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and dozens of other organizations across the political spectrum filed amicus briefs supporting First Choice's position. This diverse coalition reflects shared concern about protecting donor privacy and ensuring access to federal courts for First Amendment claims. The case will affect any lawyer concerned about mandated disclosures to the government.
Looking Ahead
While blockbuster cases on tariffs and redistricting dominate headlines, the cases highlighted here will directly impact how Virginia lawyers advise clients, litigate cases, and protect constitutional rights.
These decisions affect practitioners across all specialties—from criminal defense attorneys navigating Villareal's impact on trial strategy, to civil litigators understanding Coney Island's implications for challenging void judgments, to nonprofit counsel protecting donor privacy under First Choice. Even cases seemingly outside your practice area, like Hencely's government contractor immunity analysis, may unexpectedly intersect with our work as Virginia lawyers.
The Supreme Court only decides about 50 cases a year. Almost all of them will deeply affect our regular practice of law.
Endnotes:
1 Nathan Moelker is senior associate counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, a nonprofit organization specializing in First Amendment law and religious freedom. He litigates cases related to these issues in courts all over the country, including at the U.S. Supreme Court. He clerked for Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker. Nathan is also the author of several law review articles, primarily focused on the First Amendment. All views expressed are his own.
2 Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/landor-v-louisiana-department-of-corrections-and-public-safety/.
3 October Term 2025–26, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2025/.
4 Villareal v. Texas, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/villarreal-v-texas/.
5 Case v. Montana, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/case-v-montana/.
6 Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/coney-island-auto-parts-unlimited-inc-v-burton/.
7 Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, SCOTUSblog, http://scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hencely-v-fluor-corporation/.
8 First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/first-choice-womens-resource-centers-inc-v-platkin/.