Supreme Court grants cases on three disputes for the 2026-27 term, including a fight over access to records from the Department of Government Efficiency, a clarification of what qualifies as material support for terrorism under immigration law, and a question about prisoners’ rights to appeal adverse post-conviction rulings.
Supreme Court grants cases: DOGE records dispute
The justices agreed to review a discovery fight stemming from Freedom of Information Act requests directed at the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, created in January 2025 by President Donald Trump to modernize federal technology and streamline government operations. The case, U.S. Doge Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, began after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sought communications involving DOGE’s administrator, Amy Gleason, along with financial disclosures and other records.
CREW asked a federal court in Washington, D.C., to fast-track discovery to determine whether DOGE is a federal agency subject to FOIA, requesting employee lists, termination recommendation lists, contract and grant recommendations for cancellation, and a deposition of Gleason. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper largely granted those requests, and the D.C. Circuit declined to pause his order.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer then asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that the discovery threatened the separation of powers by undermining the confidentiality needed for candid presidential advice. In June 2025, the court, over three dissents, sent the dispute back to the D.C. Circuit, saying parts of the discovery order were too broad and emphasizing judicial deference regarding internal executive communications. The justices also put the discovery on hold.
After CREW narrowed its requests to exclude recommendations by DOGE employees, lower courts again declined to block discovery. In March, DOGE returned to the Supreme Court, asserting that the D.C. Circuit still permitted overly intrusive discovery contrary to FOIA, separation-of-powers principles, and the court’s earlier guidance in Cheney v. U.S. District Court. On Tuesday, the justices agreed to review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling.
Supreme Court grants cases: defining material support
In Blanche v. Ozurumba, the court will decide what conduct amounts to material support for a terrorist organization under federal immigration law, which can render a noncitizen removable and ineligible for various benefits. The government’s petition describes Izuchukwu Ozurumba, a Nigerian national who worked as a cook for about six months in a camp run by a separatist group known as the Unknown Gunmen before he escaped, traveled through Venezuela, and sought asylum in the United States.
An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals found that his work qualified as material support and denied asylum. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed, holding the record did not show material support because cooking with supplies the organization purchased, while sustaining the group in a broad sense, did not provide something the group could use or divert to plan or execute terrorist acts. The Supreme Court will now resolve the standard.
Supreme Court grants cases: prisoners’ appeal threshold
The justices also took Berry v. United States, which asks whether a certificate of appealability can be issued when a prisoner’s post-conviction claim is foreclosed by precedent in his circuit but would be viable in another, highlighting a split among the federal appeals courts.
Other actions from the court
The court declined to hear the case of Jesus Herrera-Salazar, who faced successive prosecutions for being found in the United States after deportation, first receiving a 15-month sentence and supervised release, then later 21 months and additional supervision. He argued the second case violated the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause because both prosecutions targeted the same continuous offense. The lower courts rejected his claim, and the Supreme Court denied review.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, issued a statement concurring in the denial while highlighting serious constitutional concerns. She wrote that when a crime involves continuous, uninterrupted conduct, double jeopardy principles suggest the government cannot obtain multiple indictments by shifting the time marker, especially where government-imposed conditions effectively prevent a defendant from ending the conduct.
The court did not act on several high-profile petitions, including a challenge to a Maryland suburb’s magnet middle school admissions policy and two challenges to the federal ban on home distilleries. The justices are set to consider those petitions and others at their Oct. 16 conference.
