The Court’s final set of opinions for the 2026 Term [Jun. 26, 2026]
The docket is cleared of argued cases (again)
This past week’s orders list brought the final decisions in argued cases this Term. The Court has met its self-imposed deadline to issue all of those opinions by June 30th.
There were, like last week, some very rare voting splits.
A majority author who wrote a concurrence to their own opinion
“Your eyes are not deceiving you,” I wrote last week. “Justice Busby wrote both a majority opinion and a concurrence to his own opinion…” I said that was only the second time in my time tracking the Court that a Justice had written separately to their own deciding opinion.
Now there are three. This week, Justice Busby wrote the opinion for the Court (and for a plurality on part of the opinion), while also writing a concurrence in the same case.
This concurrence breaks out certain issues that Justice Busby, Justice Lehrmann, and Justice Devine thought might “be explored in future cases,” while offering those future litigants “some points to consider.” That’s classic concurrence fare. I can see the logic of separating that from the main opinion, so there is less risk of it being interpreted as a holding of the Court.1 It’s just unusual to see that concurrence by the author of the lead opinion.
Vinyl fans may want to consult Justice Sullivan’s concurrence for a recommendation. He opens with a song reference — not by quoting lyrics, as is traditional such as there are traditions about pop references in judicial opinions — but by saying, “it’s better to hear for yourself. … give it a listen if you can and then turn the page.”
A second (partial) plurality opinion
The same orders included a second plurality opinion.
SOREN ALDACO v. BARBARA ROSE WOOD AND THREE OAKS COUNSELING GROUP, LLC D/B/A THRIVEWORKS, No. 24-1069
Justice Sullivan wrote for the Court (“unanimous”) for most of the opinion, but was joined only by three other Justices for Part II.B of the opinion.
Nine minus four is five who did not join. Three of those were silent about why, not writing or joining any separate opinion on the question.
Justice Young, joined by Justice Bland, did write a concurrence to express “why I am a touch more doubtful about the views expressed in Part II.B (which is not part of the opinion of the Court).”
A majority of the Court joined some kind of “statement regarding” the denial of a long-pending mandamus petition
In the past few years, a few Justices have been issuing a “statement regarding” one of the Court’s orders instead of formally noting a concurrence or dissent.
IN RE STEVEN HOTZE M.D., No. 24-1042
This case brought two separate “statements regarding,” joined by a total of five Justices.
The statement by Justice Hawkins notes that the Court “has never set out a particular standard a trial court must consider when deciding whether to stay a civil proceeding in light of a parallel criminal proceeding.” It then lays out two “impediments” to doing so in this case: (1) that the relator Hotze is no longer a criminal defendant and the person who is (Aguirre) is not a relator and (2) that it does not appear the stay in the civil case would be needed because the civil case is lagging behind the criminal process.
Justice Devine wrote a separate statement that proposes a substantive standard for when trial courts should stay a civil proceeding in light of an ongoing criminal case. He went on to “nevertheless agree with and join my colleague’s statement, which explains why the mandamus petition should be denied at this time. … The original proceeding’s current posture makes the petition a less-than-ideal vehicle for establishing such a standard.”
Final term stats are still to come
If you want to see a tentative version of the voting and opinion stats for this Term, you can reach those in the sidebar. They aren’t yet final, and the totals or percentages you see today might shift as I do cross-checks and tighten up the code that generates those live tables on the website.2