Supreme Court denies review in several closely watched cases, including challenges to Chicago’s vehicle seizure program, efforts to revive 9/11 plea deals, and a dispute over the president’s power to remove National Labor Relations Board members. The orders stem from the court’s Oct. 16 conference and were released Monday.
Supreme Court denies review on Chicago vehicle seizures
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, issued a statement highlighting concerns with a 7th Circuit ruling that upheld Chicago’s policy of seizing and selling cars owned by drivers with as few as two unpaid parking tickets without compensation. The appellate court characterized the policy as a valid use of the city’s police power to enforce traffic laws. Two motorists, Ryan O’Donnell and Michael Goree, whose vehicles were sold, asked the justices to intervene. The court denied review in a brief order.
Sotomayor wrote that she had serious concerns about the lower court’s reasoning but urged waiting for more appellate decisions before taking up the issue. She also noted the case might not be the right vehicle because the challengers attacked the entire ordinance, which could force the court to address provisions unrelated to vehicle forfeiture.
Supreme Court denies review in 9/11 plea disputes
The justices also declined, without comment, to hear two petitions connected to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including one involving Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. The defendants sought to reinstate plea agreements reached more than two years ago after nearly two decades at Guantanamo Bay. The deals would have allowed guilty pleas in exchange for life sentences, avoiding the death penalty. After the agreements, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin asserted authority to decide whether such pleas were appropriate and moved to withdraw the government’s consent. The D.C. Circuit agreed the government could do so and found the agreements nonbinding. The Supreme Court denied review on Monday. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in Mohammad’s case.
Supreme Court denies review in NLRB removal fight
The court also rejected a petition from Gwynne Wilcox, a former member of the National Labor Relations Board who was removed by President Donald Trump shortly after his second inauguration. Federal law allows removal of NLRB members for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, neither of which was alleged. Although lower courts initially ordered Wilcox reinstated, the Supreme Court in May 2025 paused those rulings and permitted removal while litigation continued.
In December 2025, the D.C. Circuit held that the for-cause removal protection violates separation of powers, concluding that Congress cannot limit the president’s ability to remove NLRB members because they exercise substantial executive power. Wilcox sought Supreme Court review in June, but the justices declined.
Other actions from the court
The justices cited a lack of quorum in leaving in place a ruling in a copyright dispute between major music companies and a songwriter. Four justices, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, recused, apparently due to ties involving a company owned by the parent of Penguin Random House, which has published books by each of them.
The court asked the U.S. solicitor general to weigh in on Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, which challenges an Iowa statute that criminalizes being present in the state after illegally reentering the United States. There is no set deadline for the solicitor general’s brief, which is expected sometime next year.
The court took no action on a set of Alabama redistricting cases. It also did not act on a petition asking whether a car is always a tool of interstate commerce for purposes of making a kidnapping offense automatically federal.
For Hawaiʻi readers, the decisions do not change state or county traffic enforcement or labor relations directly, but the outcomes could influence future national policies and legal standards that reach the islands, especially in areas like municipal fines, federal criminal jurisdiction, and agency independence.
Relatedly, readers following the court’s broader criminal and administrative docket may be interested in earlier coverage in Supreme Court grants cases on DOGE data, asylum, appeals, which tracks other cases shaping federal authority.
