(ORDER LIST: 608 U.S.)

MONDAY, JUNE 15, 2026

ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

25A1250 CLARK, EDWARD L. V. CLARK, DEBORAH L.

The application for injunction addressed to Justice

Kavanaugh and referred to the Court is denied.

25A1264 BRANNBERG, JUDY V. CIMINO, JOHN, ET AL.

The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and

referred to the Court is denied.

25M84 DAVIS, BRIAN E. V. GUERRERO, DIR., TX DCJ

The motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ

of certiorari out of time is denied.

25M85 IN RE SEALED PETITIONER

The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of

mandamus and/or prohibition under seal with redacted copies for

the public record is denied.

25M86 ENDURE INDUSTRIES, INC. V. VIZIENT, INC., ET AL.

The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of

certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record

is granted.

25-7149 DEFOGGI, TIMOTHY V. UNITED STATES

25-7150 DeVORE, KENNETH R. V. UNITED STATES

The motions of petitioners for reconsideration of orders

denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied.

25-7201 WINANS, REGINALD V. McKAY, MICHAEL K.

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 6, 2026,

within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and

to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules

of this Court.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

25-886 GENALO, DIR., ET AL. V. BLACK, CAROL W., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted as to

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Case No.

22-70. In addition to the questions presented by the petition,

the parties are directed to brief and argue the following

question: Whether G. M.'s case is now moot.

25-1003 GUERRERO, DIR., TX DCJ V. JOHNSON, DEXTER

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.

25-6623 KIAN, HAMED V. FLORIDA

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.

CERTIORARI DENIED

25-609 SIPLES, CLINTON V. COLLINS, SEC. OF VA

25-627 MACY'S INC. V. NLRB, ET AL.

25-729 KING, JAMES V. UNITED STATES, ET AL.

25-887 SAUER WEST LLC, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES

25-958 SHEETZ, GEORGE V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CA

25-985 NORMAN, EVAN V. INGLE, DEPUTY, ET AL.

25-1012 HMTX INDUSTRIES, LLC, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, ET AL.

25-1026 NAT. SHOOTING SPORTS, ET AL. V. JAMES, ATT'Y GEN. OF NY

25-1067 GOPHER MEDIA LLC, ET AL. V. MELONE, ANDREW, ET AL.

25-1073 PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. V. MONTANEZ, JOSE, ET AL.

25-1078 NATURAL LANDS, LLC V. BOCA RATON, FL. ET AL.

25-1090 HOMEWOOD ASSOCIATES INC., ET AL. V. GOVT., ATHENS-CLARKE CTY., GA

25-1107 TATA CONSULTANCY, ET AL. V. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP.

25-1155 NELSON, LUCAS R. V. GRIFFITH, ROBYN

25-1161 HUNTER, CHASE V. AUCLAIR, JOANNE

25-1162 GOLBERG, CHRISTOPHER J. V. NORTH DAKOTA

25-1169 KEARNS, SHAWN M. V. VIRGINIA

25-1171 PEREZ, BRYAN S., ET AL. V. PELENTAY, MARY

25-1174 CHATURVEDI, RAHUL V. BRIDGE OVER CORP., ET AL.

25-1180 REEVES, WADE R. V. REEVES, ALISHA M.

25-1183 CICHOWSKI, KEVIN, ET AL. V. KES, ET AL.

25-1194 MIGLIORE, EVA V. SUNLIGHT FIN. LLC, ET AL.

25-1214 KLEIN, HENRY L., ET AL. V. LEWIS TITLE INS. CO., ET AL.

25-1261 CORBETT, JONATHAN V. HOCHUL, GOV. OF NY, ET AL.

25-1276 WARNER, RICHARD E., ET AL. V. MARATHON, FL

25-1278 RAMM, JEROMY L. V. ILLINOIS

25-1282 BROGSDALE, MALCOLM J. V. TORRES-CORONA, ANNETTE, ET AL.

25-6372 BELOUS, ANDRE V. BATTLE CREEK, MI

25-6622 NELSON, ALANTE M. V. UNITED STATES

25-6714 GRANILLO, IVAN V. UNITED STATES

25-6756 CHERAMY, JACKLIN V. UNITED STATES

25-6774 FLORES, CHARLES D. V. TEXAS

25-6778 RAMADON, JASIM M. H. V. COLORADO

25-7055 McKANE, OTIS T. V. TEXAS

25-7164 ALCOSER, DANNY W. V. GUERRERO, DIR., TX DCJ

25-7169 DANIELS, GABRYELLE V. TX DEPT. OF FAMILY, ET AL.

25-7179 EDWARDS, ROGER T. V. CALIFORNIA

25-7185 SIPULT, RAYMOND V. LONARD, KERRIE

25-7186 GONZALES, DAVID L. V. MAYES, ATT'Y GEN. OF AZ, ET AL.

25-7188 RAY, JOSEPH W. V. TEXAS

25-7189 ROBINSON, EDWARD E. V. VALDEZ, ACTING WARDEN

25-7191 WALKER, CALVIN G. V. TEXAS

25-7204 TORRES, RUTH V. FRAZIER, JUDGE, ET AL.

25-7206 GIACCIO, HUONG G. V. LYON, MEREDITH, ET AL.

25-7209 LOWERY, MARGARET J. V. IL ATT'Y REGISTRATION

25-7217 LEFTRIDGE, VERNON J. V. CT JUDICIAL BRANCH, ET AL.

25-7231 GLASS, ALBERT V. OFFICE OF CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER

25-7247 DIGGS, ANTHONY C. V. UNITED STATES

25-7252 PRICOP, VIOREL V. UNITED STATES

25-7254 LLOYD, SUSAN V. LANCASTER CTY. HOUSING AUTH.

25-7256 MILLER, ALONZO V. UNITED STATES

25-7257 REYNOLDS, MALIK V. UNITED STATES

25-7269 FELDER, BRITTNEY V. MGM NATIONAL HARBOR, LLC

25-7276 PHILLIPS, ERNEST V. REYNOLDS, WARDEN

25-7285 PERRYMAN, LAURA V. UNITED STATES

25-7290 VILLARREAL, GERARDO V. UNITED STATES

25-7372 MOCK, TYRONE V. DAVIS, WARDEN

25-7379 MAJTYKA, THADDEUS J. V. FLORIDA

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

25-705 PAGE, CARTER V. COMEY, JAMES B., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice

Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this

petition. See 28 U. S. C. §455 and Code of Conduct for Justices

of the Supreme Court of the United States, Canon 3B(2)(e) (prior

judicial service).

25-847 ALABAMA V. SYKES, BRANDON D.

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is

denied. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would grant the

petition for certiorari and summarily reverse for the reasons

stated in Alabama v. Powell, 608 U. S. ___ (2026) (Alito, J.,

dissenting from denial of certiorari).

25-1101 NEWMAN, JUDGE, USCA FED. CIR. V. MOORE, CHIEF JUDGE, ET AL.

The motion for leave to file a brief in opposition under

seal with redacted copies for the public record is granted. The

motion for leave to file a reply under seal with redacted copies

for the public record is granted. The petition for a writ of

certiorari is denied.

25-1160 KOREAN CLAIMANTS V. DOW SILICONES CORP., ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice

Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this

petition.

HABEAS CORPUS DENIED

25-7448 IN RE MICHAEL SAMPSON

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

MANDAMUS DENIED

25-7167 IN RE ELI ANGELINO

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

PROHIBITION DENIED

25-1178 IN RE JOSEPH RUED, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied.

REHEARINGS DENIED

24-276 CROWNHOLM, RYAN, ET AL. V. MOORE, RICHARD B., ET AL.

24-279 360 VIRTUAL DRONE SERV., ET AL. V. RITTER, ANDREW L., ET AL.

24-1209 JONES, DARYLL B. V. NEW YORK, ET AL.

25-995 ARNOLD, VENISHA V. 1600 WEST LOOP SOUTH, ET AL.

25-1021 JACKSON, RICHARD C. V. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SEC.

25-6559 KAFEITI, CHARLES V. UNITED STATES

25-6825 LAWLESS, RICHARD R. V. UNITED STATES, ET AL.

The petitions for rehearing are denied.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALABAMA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY POWELL

on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of criminal appeals of alabama

No. 25–848. Decided June 15, 2026

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

A prosecutor in this capital case made a statement in closing argument that the trial judge interpreted as a comment on properly admitted evidence. On appeal, however, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted the statement as a comment on the defendant’s failure to take the stand, and on that basis it reversed the defendant’s conviction. The State asks us to summarily reverse the decision below based on United States v. Robinson, 485 U. S. 25 (1988), which found no violation of the Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination in a case with very similar facts. The State is right: The decision below contravenes Robinson, and this Court should summarily reverse it.

I

Michael Powell was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for shooting a gas station attendant during a robbery. The State connected Powell to the murder through security-camera footage and eyewitness testimony. Nearby security cameras provided footage of a man walking to the gas station from an apartment building just before the robbery and murder and then returning quickly to the apartment building. When the police released photos of the suspect, two employees at the apartment building identi-fied Powell as the person of interest. Separately, a driver who saw the suspect running away from the gas station picked Powell out of a photographic lineup. Although the State never found the murder weapon, it discovered a box of ammunition at Powell’s girlfriend’s house that matched a shell casing from the scene of the murder.

Faced with this evidence, Powell concocted a far-fetched scheme to point the finger at someone else. While in pretrial detention, Powell hired a fellow inmate, David Jackson, to write a letter confessing to the crime. Powell told Jackson that another detainee wanted to confess but could not write the letter himself. Powell therefore instructed Jackson to leave a blank where this person’s name would later be inserted. Jackson complied, but Powell then inserted Jackson’s name in the blank space. The letter purported to exonerate Powell but stated that Powell knew where to find the murder weapon.

In his closing argument at trial, Powell’s counsel pointed out that the State never uncovered the murder weapon. So in rebuttal, the prosecutor told the jury, “ ‘[y]ou know there is only one person in this room who knows where the gun is. One person, he is sitting over there. That guy knows where the gun is.’ ” No. CR–20–727 (Ala. Ct. Crim. App., May 3, 2024), App. to Pet. for Cert. 12a (App.). Defense counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor had impermissibly commented on his client’s decision not to testify. Outside the presence of the jury, the prosecutor explained that he had referred only to the false confession letter, not to Powell’s silence. Id., at 12a–13a (“ ‘The David Jackson letter says that David Jackson told him where the gun is’ ”). The trial court accepted that explanation “ ‘depending on what comes next of course.’ ” Id., at 13a. Then, back in the presence of the jury, the prosecutor said “ ‘[t]here is one man in this courtroom who knows where that gun is, one man and he is sitting right over there next to that jury box. You remember that letter from David Jackson?’ ” Ibid. (emphasis deleted). Defense counsel once again objected, and the trial court overruled the objection.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed because, in its view, the prosecutor had impermissibly commented on the defendant’s silence. In its discussion, the Alabama Court cited both the United States and Alabama Constitutions. Id., at 16a. It also cited both Alabama and federal case law. Id., at 16a–21a. Ultimately, the court concluded that the “State’s direct comment on Powell’s right not to testify requires this Court to reverse” because this “type of comment . . . is forbidden under the Constitution.” Id., at 24a. The court did not specify which Constitution it meant.

II

The Fifth Amendment protects a criminal defendant from being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” In Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 (1965), we held that a prosecutor’s comment on a defendant’s failure to testify can violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Then, in Robinson, this Court clarified the narrow scope of Griffin’s rule. We explained that “[w]here the prosecutor on his own initiative asks the jury to draw an adverse inference from a defendant’s silence, Griffin holds that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is violated.” Robinson, 485 U. S., at 32. But when the “prosecutor’s reference to the defendant’s opportunity to testify is a fair response to a claim made by defendant or his counsel, we think there is no violation of the privilege.” Ibid.

In this case, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals charted a different course. Even though the trial court interpreted the prosecutor’s statement as a reference to the false confession letter, App. 12a–13a, the appellate court interpreted the statement as a “direct comment on Powell’s right not to testify.” Id., at 24a. This holding ignores Rob-inson’s instruction that an appellate court may not “substitute its reading of ambiguous language for that of the trial court and counsel.” 485 U. S., at 31. Likewise, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the “State’s direct comment on Powell’s right not to testify requires this Court to reverse.” App. 24a. Yet Robinson rejected the “view that any ‘direct’ reference by the prosecutor to the failure of the defendant to testify violates the Fifth Amendment.” 485 U. S., at 31. Because the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision contradicted Robinson, I would grant certiorari and summarily reverse.

Respondent defends the judgment below as resting on Alabama law. But the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals cited the United States and Alabama Constitutions alongside federal and state case law. App. 16a–21a. The decision below never suggested that the “federal cases [we]re being used only for the purpose of guidance” or that they did “not themselves compel the result that the court . . . reached.” Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1041 (1983). In such situations, where federal and state law are “ ‘interwoven,’ ” we “ ‘accept as the most reasonable explanation that the state court decided the case the way it did because it believed that federal law required it to do so.’ ” Florida v. Powell, 559 U. S. 50, 56–57 (2010) (quoting Long, 463 U. S., at 1040–1041). I would follow that presumption here and summarily reverse the decision below because it contradicts our Fifth Amendment precedent.

If there were any lingering doubt about the basis for the judgment below, we could remand for the Alabama Court to clarify whether its decision rested on federal or state law. See, e.g., Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Toole, 466 U. S. 378 (1984) (per curiam). But this Court does not take even that minimal step. Thus, I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.