(ORDER LIST: 609 U.S.)

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2026

CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITIONS

24-449 PETERSEN, WARREN, ET AL. V. DOE, JANE, ET AL.

The motion of Independent Council on Women's Sports, et al.

for leave to file a brief as amici curiae out of time is denied.

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

is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in

light of West Virginia v. B. P. J., 609 U. S. ___ (2026).

24-1097 MONSANTO CO. V. SALAS, NANCY C.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The

judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further

consideration in light of Monsanto v. Durnell, 609 U. S. ___

(2026).

24-1098 MONSANTO CO. V. JOHNSON, LARRY, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The

judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of

Appeals of Oregon for further consideration in light of

Monsanto v. Durnell, 609 U. S. ___ (2026).

25-484 WELLS, AARON R. V. TEXAS

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The

judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of

Criminal Appeals of Texas for further consideration in light of

Chatrie v. United States, 609 U. S. ___ (2026).

25-1042 MONSANTO CO. V. ANDERSON, DANIEL, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The

judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of

Appeals of Missouri, Western District for further consideration

in light of Monsanto v. Durnell, 609 U. S. ___ (2026).

25-5189 DAVIS, JOHNNIE L. V. UNITED STATES

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

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

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further

consideration in light of Chatrie v. United States, 609 U. S.

___ (2026).

25-6124 LUNG'AHO, MUJERA B. V. UNITED STATES

The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma

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

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further

consideration in light of Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of

Corrections and Public Safety, 609 U. S. ___ (2026).

ORDERS IN PENDING CASES

25A478 BLANCHE, TODD, ET AL. V. PERLMUTTER, SHIRA

The application for stay is denied. The denial of the

application is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues

presented in the litigation.

25A952 MULLIN, SEC., DHS, ET AL. V. DOE, DAHLIA, ET AL.

25A999 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. MIOT, FRITZ E. L., ET AL.

The applications for stay are denied as moot.

25-442 ROYBAL, SHERIFF, ET AL. V. GRIFFITH, DARLENE

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this

case expressing the views of the United States.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

25-238 ) VIRAMONTES, CUTBERTO, ET AL. V. COOK COUNTY, IL, ET AL.

)

25-566 ) GRANT, EDDIE, ET AL. V. HIGGINS, RONNELL, ET AL.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted as to the

question presented by the petition in No. 25-238. The cases are

consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral

argument.

25-965 GRAND, DANIEL V. UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, OH, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

25-1311 APPLE INC. V. EPIC GAMES, INC.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to

Question 1 presented by the petition.

CERTIORARI DENIED

24-229 TRIPATHY, SANJAY V. McKOY, JEFF, ET AL.

24-1185 NRA, INC. V. GLASS, MARK

24-1329 BIVENS, GEORGE V. SECOND AMDT. FOUND., ET AL.

25-24 McCOY, JOSHUA C., ET AL. V. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, ET AL.

25-364 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. WASHINGTON, ET AL.

25-899 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. DOE, O., ET AL.

25-1110 HARRIS, CATHY A. V. BESSENT, SCOTT, ET AL.

25-5639 ALI, FATHIREE U. V. ADAMSON, CHAPLAIN, ET AL.

25-5713 LEYTON PICON, EMANUEL V. UNITED STATES

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

25-132 WV CITIZENS DEFENSE LEAGUE V. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice

Thomas would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.

25-1047 TRIUMPH FOODS, LLC, ET AL. V. CAMPBELL, ATT'Y GEN. MA, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice

Alito and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the petition for a writ

of certiorari.

25-6136 JONES, DAMIEN A. V. UNITED STATES

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice

Sotomayor, concurring: I concur in the denial of certiorari for

the reasons given in Jones v. United States, 609 U. S. ___

(2026) (statement of Sotomayor, J.).

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

CEDRIC RAY JONES v. UNITED STATES

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit

No. 25–524. Decided June 30, 2026

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Statement of Justice Sotomayor respecting the denial of certiorari.

I concur in the Court’s decision not to grant, vacate, and remand this case in light of Hunter v. United States, 608 U. S. ___ (2026). Hunter addressed the enforceability of appeal waivers specifically “in the sentencing context,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 1), whereas this petition concerns when a collateral-review waiver is enforceable against a challenge to a defendant’s conviction. I write, however, to encourage lower courts to consider carefully the import of Hunter’s reasoning when deciding whether to enforce a collateral-review or appeal waiver against a defendant who is challenging the validity of his conviction.

Hunter’s reasoning is simple. It starts with the recognition that the judiciary plays a “special, and indeed pivotal, role . . . in approving and implementing appeal waivers”: District courts must “accept the plea agreement, including any appeal waiver,” and circuit courts must “decid[e] to enforce it.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 8–9). “Because that is so, the standard for enforcing appeal waivers implicates the interests not only of the agreement’s parties, but also of the judiciary.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 9). Therefore, “an appeal waiver is unenforceable,” and may be set aside in a given case, “if the sentence is marred by the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute,” i.e., if enforcing it “would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 11). Hunter held that the error “must be obvious” and “of the type that would undermine public confidence in the judiciary.” Ibid. Although these errors are “rare,” Hunter explained, the “possibility of correction helps keep them so, and thus safeguards that system’s integrity.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13).

Hunter’s reasoning could well apply to appeal and collateral-review waivers when a defendant seeks to challenge his conviction itself. This case presents a useful illustration. Here, petitioner Cedric Ray Jones was charged in 2015 with, among other crimes, brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a “crime of violence” in violation of 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Jones signed an agreement to plead guilty to the §924(c) count, and that agreement contained a provision “ ‘waiv[ing] his rights . . . to appeal from his convictions and sentences’ ” and “ ‘further waiv[ing] his right to contest his convictions and sentences in any collateral proceeding, including proceedings under 28 U. S. C. §2241 and 28 U. S. C. §2255.’ ” 134 F. 4th 831, 834 (CA5 2025). The District Court approved the plea agreement, and the accompanying waiver, and sentenced Jones to nearly 48 years’ imprisonment, which included a 7-year consecutive sentence for the §924(c) charge.

In 2018, Jones filed a motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U. S. C. §2255, arguing that his §924(c) conviction is constitutionally invalid because that statute’s “residual clause,” under which he had been convicted, is unconstitutionally vague. While that motion was pending, this Court decided United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. 445 (2019), which held §924(c)’s residual clause unconstitutionally vague, thereby agreeing with Jones on precisely this issue. Despite Davis, the Government opposed granting Jones relief, arguing that the collateral-review waiver in Jones’s plea agreement forever waived his right to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction. The District Court agreed with the Government, enforced Jones’s collateral-review waiver, and denied Jones’s motion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, explaining that its Circuit precedent “ha[d] recognized only two exceptions” to the enforceability of an appeal or collateral-review waiver (“ ‘ineffective assistance of counsel’ ” and “ ‘a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum’ ”), neither of which applied to Jones. 134 F. 4th, at 840.

Just like the enforcement of the appeal waiver in Hunter, here the District Court’s enforcement of Jones’s collateral-review waiver and the Fifth Circuit’s decision to affirm that enforcement both appear to “implicat[e] the interests . . . of the judiciary” because those “courts are in the middle of, and partly responsible for,” the “results” of that waiver. Hunter, 608 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9). The end result here is that “Jones is currently serving a sentence for a crime” that “[a]ll agree” has been “held to be unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent.” 134 F. 4th, at 843 (Dennis, J., dissenting). The decision to enforce Jones’s collateral-review waiver thus might well be leaving “in place” an “egregious error” that “bring[s] the judicial system into disrepute.” Hunter, 608 U. S. ___ (slip op., at 1). In the future, when defendants challenge the constitutionality of their convictions, I encourage the Fifth Circuit and other courts to consider carefully whether to enforce a collateral-review or appeal waiver in light of the miscarriage-of-justice principles laid out in Hunter.