{"id":11886,"date":"2026-07-25T16:54:07","date_gmt":"2026-07-25T23:54:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886"},"modified":"2026-07-25T16:54:07","modified_gmt":"2026-07-25T23:54:07","slug":"supreme-court-opinions-in-criminal-and-related-cases-october-2025-term","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Opinions in Criminal and Related Cases, October 2025 Term"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here are the U.S. Supreme Court opinions in criminal and related cases from the October 2025 term, i.e., October 2025 to July 2026. The case descriptions are from the court’s website<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Pitts v. Mississippi<\/em>, No. 24-1159, decided November 24, 2025. Opinion Per Curiam<\/em>
\nA defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to meet his accusers face to face may not be denied without case-specific findings of necessity, notwithstanding Mississippi\u2019s right-to-screening statute, Miss. Code Ann. \u00a799\u201343\u2013101(2)(g).<\/p>\n

Clark v. Sweeney<\/em>, No. 25-52, decided November 24, 2025. Opinion Per Curiam<\/em>
\nThe Fourth Circuit departed from the principle of party presentation and abused its discretion in granting a new trial.<\/p>\n

Bowe v. United States<\/em>, No. 24-5438, decided January 9, 2026. Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
\nTitle 28 U. S. C. \u00a72244(b)(3)(E) does not bar this Court\u2019s review of a federal prisoner\u2019s request to file a second or successive \u00a72255 motion for postconviction relief, and \u00a72244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed under \u00a72255(h) by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences.<\/p>\n

Case v. Montana<\/em>, No. 24-624, decided January 14, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kagan
\nUnder the standard set in Brigham City v. Stuart<\/em>, 547 U. S. 398, 400, the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to enter a home without a warrant if they have an \u201cobjectively reasonable basis for believing\u201d that someone inside needs emergency assistance; that standard was met here.<\/p>\n

Barrett v. United States<\/em>, No. 24-5774, decided January 14, 2026. Opinion by Justice Jackson
\nCongress did not clearly authorize convictions under both 18 U. S. C. \u00a7\u00a7924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (j) for a single act that violates both provisions\u2014therefore, one act that violates both may spawn only one conviction; the part of the Second Circuit\u2019s judgment that held otherwise is reversed.<\/p>\n

Ellingburg v. United States<\/em>, No. 24-482, decided January 20, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh
\nRestitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.<\/p>\n

Klein v. Martin<\/em>, No. 25-51, decided January 26, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam<\/em>
\nBecause the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the award of a new trial based on reasoning that departed from the strict standards that govern the grant of federal habeas relief to prisoners convicted in state court prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Court grants the State\u2019s petition for a writ of certiorari and reverses the judgment below.<\/p>\n

Villarreal v. Texas<\/em>, No. 24-557, decided February 25, 2026. Opinion by Justice Jackson
\nA trial court\u2019s qualified conferral order that prohibits only discussion of the defendant\u2019s testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess permissibly balances the defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the burden of offering unaltered trial testimony and does not violate the Constitution.<\/p>\n

Zorn v. Linton<\/em>, No. 25-297, decided March 23, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam<\/em>
\nBecause the Second Circuit failed to identify a case where an officer using a routine wristlock on a protester after issuing a verbal warning, without more, was held to have violated the Constitution, Sergeant Jacob Zorn was entitled to qualified immunity; the Second Circuit\u2019s contrary conclusion was erroneous.<\/p>\n

Rico v. United States<\/em>, No. 24-1056, decided March 25, 2026. Opinion by Justice Gorsuch
\nThe Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 does not authorize a rule automatically extending a defendant\u2019s term of supervised release when the defendant fails to report to a probation officer.<\/p>\n

District of Columbia v. R.W<\/em>., No. 25-248, decided April 20, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam<\/em>
\nBecause Officer Vanterpool clearly had reasonable suspicion to stop R. W., the judgment of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded.<\/p>\n

Hamm v. Smith<\/em>, No. 24-872, decided May 21, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam<\/em>
\nCertiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.<\/p>\n

Pitchford v. Cain<\/em>, No. 24-7351, decided May 28, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh
\nIn Pitchford\u2019s direct appeal of a capital murder sentence, the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied the clearly established precedents of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, to determine that Pitchford waived his opportunity to rebut the prosecutor\u2019s asserted race-neutral reasons for the peremptory strikes of four black prospective jurors.<\/p>\n

Fernandez v. United States<\/em>, No. 24-556, decided May 28, 2026. Opinion by Justice Barrett
\nA prisoner who collaterally attacks the validity of his conviction must proceed through 28 U. S. C. \u00a72255, not 18 U. S. C. \u00a73582; the supposed invalidity of a conviction is not among the \u201cextraordinary and compelling reasons\u201d that justify compassionate release.<\/p>\n

Rutherford v. United States<\/em>, No. 24-820, decided May 28, 2026. Opinion by Justice Barrett
\nWhen Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive\u2014as with the change to 18 U. S. C. \u00a7924(c)\u2014the resulting sentencing disparity cannot serve as an \u201cextraordinary and compelling\u201d reason that warrants a sentence reduction under \u00a73582(c)(1)(A)(i).<\/p>\n

Whitton v. Dixon<\/em>, No. 25-580, decided June 1, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam<\/em>
\nThe Court of Appeals erred in considering post-trial DNA evidence when assessing whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that jailhouse informant Ozio\u2019s testimony was immaterial to the jury\u2019s verdict, because evidence not presented to the jury could not have influenced the jury\u2019s verdict and therefore sheds no light on whether Ozio\u2019s testimony influenced that verdict.<\/p>\n

Abouammo v. United States<\/em>, No. 25-5146, decided June 11, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kagan
\nA defendant charged with knowingly falsifying a document with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation in violation of 18 U. S. C. \u00a71519 must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred; the defendant cannot be tried in a different district where the investigation was located because no \u201cconduct constituting the offense\u201d happened there.<\/p>\n

Hunter v. United States<\/em>, No. 24-1063, decided June 18, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kagan
\nAn agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice\u2014meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.<\/p>\n

United States v. Hemani<\/em>, No. 24-1234, decided June 18, 2026. Opinion by Justice Gorsuch
\nProsecution of Ali Hemani under 18 U. S. C. \u00a7922(g)(3)\u2014for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance\u2014is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

McCarthy v. Hernandez<\/em>, No. 25-748, decided June 22, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam<\/em>
\nThe Second Circuit exceeded its authority in holding that Hernandez is entitled to habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. \u00a72254(d)(1); no clearly established federal law required the trial court to instruct the jury about the rule that Justice Kennedy adopted in Missouri v. Seibert<\/em>, 542 U. S. 600, and the Second Circuit erred in holding otherwise.<\/p>\n

Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety<\/em>, No. 23-1197, decided June 23, 2026. Opinion by Justice Gorsuch
\nState employees may not be held liable in their personal capacities under a Spending Clause statute such as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 unless those individuals have voluntarily and knowingly consented to answer private suits under the statute; the individual defendants in this case did not do so here, so Landor\u2019s case cannot proceed against them.<\/p>\n

Chatrie v. United States<\/em>, No. 25-112, decided June 29, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kagan
\nPolice officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Okello Chatrie\u2019s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here are the U.S. Supreme Court opinions in criminal and related cases from the October 2025 term, i.e., October 2025 to July 2026. The case descriptions are from the court’s website. Pitts v. Mississippi, No. 24-1159, decided November 24, 2025. Opinion Per Curiam A defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to meet his accusers face to face may not be denied without case-specific findings of necessity, notwithstanding Mississippi\u2019s right-to-screening statute, Miss. Code Ann. \u00a799\u201343\u2013101(2)(g). Clark v. Sweeney, No. 25-52, decided November 24, 2025. Opinion Per Curiam The Fourth Circuit departed from the principle of party presentation and abused its discretion in granting a new trial. Bowe v. United States, No. 24-5438, decided January 9, 2026. Opinion by Justice Sotomayor Title 28 U. S. C. \u00a72244(b)(3)(E) does not bar this Court\u2019s review of a federal prisoner\u2019s request to file a second or successive \u00a72255 motion for postconviction relief, and \u00a72244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed under \u00a72255(h) by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences. Case v. Montana, No. 24-624, decided January 14, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kagan Under the standard set in Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 400, the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to enter a home without a warrant if they have an \u201cobjectively reasonable basis for believing\u201d that someone inside needs emergency assistance; that standard was met here. Barrett v. United States, No. 24-5774, decided January 14, 2026. Opinion by Justice Jackson Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both 18 U. S. C. \u00a7\u00a7924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (j) for a single act that violates both provisions\u2014therefore, one act that violates both may spawn only one conviction; the part of the Second Circuit\u2019s judgment that held otherwise is reversed. Ellingburg v. United States, No. 24-482, decided January 20, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Klein v. Martin, No. 25-51, decided January 26, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam Because the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the award of a new trial based on reasoning that departed from the strict standards that govern the grant of federal habeas relief to prisoners convicted in state court prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Court grants the State\u2019s petition for a writ of certiorari and reverses the judgment below. Villarreal v. Texas, No. 24-557, decided February 25, 2026. Opinion by Justice Jackson A trial court\u2019s qualified conferral order that prohibits only discussion of the defendant\u2019s testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess permissibly balances the defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the burden of offering unaltered trial testimony and does not violate the Constitution. Zorn v. Linton, No. 25-297, decided March 23, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a case where an officer using a routine wristlock on a protester after issuing a verbal warning, without more, was held to have violated the...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11886","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Opinions in Criminal and Related Cases, October 2025 Term - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Opinions in Criminal and Related Cases, October 2025 Term - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Here are the U.S. Supreme Court opinions in criminal and related cases from the October 2025 term, i.e., October 2025 to July 2026. The case descriptions are from the court’s website. Pitts v. Mississippi, No. 24-1159, decided November 24, 2025. Opinion Per Curiam A defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to meet his accusers face to face may not be denied without case-specific findings of necessity, notwithstanding Mississippi\u2019s right-to-screening statute, Miss. Code Ann. \u00a799\u201343\u2013101(2)(g). Clark v. Sweeney, No. 25-52, decided November 24, 2025. Opinion Per Curiam The Fourth Circuit departed from the principle of party presentation and abused its discretion in granting a new trial. Bowe v. United States, No. 24-5438, decided January 9, 2026. Opinion by Justice Sotomayor Title 28 U. S. C. \u00a72244(b)(3)(E) does not bar this Court\u2019s review of a federal prisoner\u2019s request to file a second or successive \u00a72255 motion for postconviction relief, and \u00a72244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed under \u00a72255(h) by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences. Case v. Montana, No. 24-624, decided January 14, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kagan Under the standard set in Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 400, the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to enter a home without a warrant if they have an \u201cobjectively reasonable basis for believing\u201d that someone inside needs emergency assistance; that standard was met here. Barrett v. United States, No. 24-5774, decided January 14, 2026. Opinion by Justice Jackson Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both 18 U. S. C. \u00a7\u00a7924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (j) for a single act that violates both provisions\u2014therefore, one act that violates both may spawn only one conviction; the part of the Second Circuit\u2019s judgment that held otherwise is reversed. Ellingburg v. United States, No. 24-482, decided January 20, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Klein v. Martin, No. 25-51, decided January 26, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam Because the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the award of a new trial based on reasoning that departed from the strict standards that govern the grant of federal habeas relief to prisoners convicted in state court prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Court grants the State\u2019s petition for a writ of certiorari and reverses the judgment below. Villarreal v. Texas, No. 24-557, decided February 25, 2026. Opinion by Justice Jackson A trial court\u2019s qualified conferral order that prohibits only discussion of the defendant\u2019s testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess permissibly balances the defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the burden of offering unaltered trial testimony and does not violate the Constitution. Zorn v. Linton, No. 25-297, decided March 23, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a case where an officer using a routine wristlock on a protester after issuing a verbal warning, without more, was held to have violated the...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-25T23:54:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Opinions in Criminal and Related Cases, October 2025 Term - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-25T23:54:07+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court Opinions in Criminal and Related Cases, October 2025 Term\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Opinions in Criminal and Related Cases, October 2025 Term - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Opinions in Criminal and Related Cases, October 2025 Term - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"Here are the U.S. Supreme Court opinions in criminal and related cases from the October 2025 term, i.e., October 2025 to July 2026. The case descriptions are from the court’s website. Pitts v. Mississippi, No. 24-1159, decided November 24, 2025. Opinion Per Curiam A defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to meet his accusers face to face may not be denied without case-specific findings of necessity, notwithstanding Mississippi\u2019s right-to-screening statute, Miss. Code Ann. \u00a799\u201343\u2013101(2)(g). Clark v. Sweeney, No. 25-52, decided November 24, 2025. Opinion Per Curiam The Fourth Circuit departed from the principle of party presentation and abused its discretion in granting a new trial. Bowe v. United States, No. 24-5438, decided January 9, 2026. Opinion by Justice Sotomayor Title 28 U. S. C. \u00a72244(b)(3)(E) does not bar this Court\u2019s review of a federal prisoner\u2019s request to file a second or successive \u00a72255 motion for postconviction relief, and \u00a72244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed under \u00a72255(h) by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences. Case v. Montana, No. 24-624, decided January 14, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kagan Under the standard set in Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 400, the Fourth Amendment allows police officers to enter a home without a warrant if they have an \u201cobjectively reasonable basis for believing\u201d that someone inside needs emergency assistance; that standard was met here. Barrett v. United States, No. 24-5774, decided January 14, 2026. Opinion by Justice Jackson Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both 18 U. S. C. \u00a7\u00a7924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (j) for a single act that violates both provisions\u2014therefore, one act that violates both may spawn only one conviction; the part of the Second Circuit\u2019s judgment that held otherwise is reversed. Ellingburg v. United States, No. 24-482, decided January 20, 2026. Opinion by Justice Kavanaugh Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 is criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Klein v. Martin, No. 25-51, decided January 26, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam Because the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the award of a new trial based on reasoning that departed from the strict standards that govern the grant of federal habeas relief to prisoners convicted in state court prescribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the Court grants the State\u2019s petition for a writ of certiorari and reverses the judgment below. Villarreal v. Texas, No. 24-557, decided February 25, 2026. Opinion by Justice Jackson A trial court\u2019s qualified conferral order that prohibits only discussion of the defendant\u2019s testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess permissibly balances the defendant\u2019s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the burden of offering unaltered trial testimony and does not violate the Constitution. Zorn v. Linton, No. 25-297, decided March 23, 2026. Opinion Per Curiam Because the Second Circuit failed to identify a case where an officer using a routine wristlock on a protester after issuing a verbal warning, without more, was held to have violated the...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2026-07-25T23:54:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886","name":"Supreme Court Opinions in Criminal and Related Cases, October 2025 Term - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-25T23:54:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=11886#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Opinions in Criminal and Related Cases, October 2025 Term"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11886","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11886"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11886\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11889,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11886\/revisions\/11889"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}