The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, relisted six new petitions for its upcoming conference, including two cases challenging a federal ban on home distilling. The justices are also considering whether to hear cases involving race-neutral school admissions policies, the trademark rights of Roberto Clemente’s family, a qualified immunity dispute from the 2020 Minneapolis unrest, and the constitutionality of Missouri’s Halloween sign requirements for sex offenders.
These developments follow the court's recent actions on previous relists, which include granting review in U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and Blanche v. Ozurumba. The court also granted Berry v. United States to resolve a circuit conflict regarding certificates of appealability for prisoners. Conversely, the court denied review in Herrera-Salazar v. United States, a double-jeopardy challenge to successive immigration prosecutions, though Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch filed a statement respecting the denial.
The home distilling cases, Department of Justice v. McNutt and Ream v. Department of the Treasury, center on 26 U.S.C. § 5178(a)(1)(B), which prohibits distilling spirits in a dwelling house or connected enclosures. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled the ban exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers, while the 6th Circuit upheld it as a valid tool for enforcing excise taxes. Both the government and the challengers have expressed support for the Supreme Court resolving the split, though they disagree on which case serves as the better vehicle for review.
Additionally, the Montgomery County Board of Education case affects students and parents by clarifying if challengers must prove a statistical disparate impact before a court reviews evidence of discriminatory intent in school admissions. This follows a 2016 report that led to changes in magnet school criteria; parents allege Asian-American enrollment dropped by half at two programs. In Missouri, the Halloween sign case affects registered sex offenders who face misdemeanor charges if they do not post a government-mandated "No candy" sign on their property, a requirement the 8th Circuit recently found unconstitutional.
Further impact is seen in the Clemente case, where the family of Roberto Clemente is seeking to recover approximately $15 million they allege Puerto Rico raised through unauthorized license plates. A ruling here would address whether Puerto Rico possesses sovereign immunity similar to U.S. states and how the Takings Clause applies to intangible trademarks. The next set of orders from the Supreme Court is scheduled for Monday.