The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in November in disputes over (among other issues) a Catholic preschool’s challenge to its exclusion from a Colorado preschool program and an inmate’s ability to sue a federal prison official for violating his constitutional rights.
The calendar for the justices’ November argument session, released on Tuesday morning, indicates that the justices will hear seven hours of oral arguments over five days in November, beginning on Nov. 2 and concluding on Nov. 10.
The highlights of the November argument session include St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, in which the court will consider whether a Catholic preschool’s exclusion from Colorado’s universal preschool program is a form of religious discrimination that violates the First Amendment. The preschool argued that the state should have provided it with an exemption from rules that would have otherwise required it to admit any student who applied, including LGBTQ children and the children of LGBTQ parents. A federal appeals court rejected that argument. It concluded that, under the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, the state’s rules did not violate the Constitution because they are neutral and generally apply to every preschool, regardless of religious affiliation.
In Nielsen v. Watanabe, the court will consider whether a federal inmate, Kekai Watanabe, who contends that his coccyx was fractured in a fight, can sue prison officials – who, he said, failed to send him to the hospital and refused several requests for medical treatment. Watanabe’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s 1971 decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, holding that a private individual could sue a federal agent for violating his Fourth Amendment rights, even when there was not a specific law authorizing a claim for damages. Since then, however, the justices have been reluctant to allow plaintiffs to rely on Bivens, and the federal government contends that Watanabe should not be able to do so here.
The November argument schedule
Maxwell v. Dinis (Nov. 2): Whether an inmate’s claim regarding the application of time credits, seeking accelerated transfer to a halfway house or home confinement under the First Step Act, can be brought as a petition for habeas relief.
Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office (Nov. 2): Whether a defendant can raise an affirmative defense (that is, a legal excuse or justification) later in the proceedings when it did not raise that defense in the answer to the plaintiff’s complaint.
St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy (Nov. 3): (1) Whether proving a lack of general applicability under Employment Division v. Smith requires showing unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct; and (2) whether Carson v. Makin, in which the court struck down Maine’s ban on the use of public funds for private religious schools, displaces the rule of Employment Division v. Smith only when the government explicitly excludes religious people and institutions.
Guerrero v. Johnson (Nov. 4): Whether a death-row inmate’s claim that he is intellectually disabled and therefore cannot be executed falls within one of the narrow exceptions in which a state prisoner can file a second petition for federal post-conviction relief when, the state argued, he could have raised the claim in an earlier petition.
Nielsen v. Watanabe (Nov. 9): Whether the lower court properly allowed a federal prisoner’s lawsuit against prison officials to go forward under Bivens.
Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission (Nov. 9): How to determine “just compensation” when a private entity uses the federal power of eminent domain to obtain rights of way to construct natural gas pipelines.
Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC (Nov. 10): Whether the Department of Labor has the power to hold hearings to collect money from employers who violate the terms of the visa program for seasonal farm workers.
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Court announces cases it will hear in November, including religious discrimination dispute, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 11, 2026, 2:07 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/court-announces-cases-it-will-hear-in-november-including-religious-discrimination-dispute/
Facts Only
* The Supreme Court released its November argument calendar on Tuesday.
* Oral arguments will occur over five days from Nov. 2 to Nov. 10.
* Total scheduled oral argument time is seven hours.
* St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy (Nov. 3) concerns a Catholic preschool's exclusion from Colorado's universal preschool program.
* Nielsen v. Watanabe (Nov. 9) concerns a federal inmate's lawsuit against prison officials for denied medical treatment.
* Maxwell v. Dinis (Nov. 2) involves habeas relief for time credits under the First Step Act.
* Younge v. Fulton Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office (Nov. 2) concerns the timing of raising affirmative defenses.
* Guerrero v. Johnson (Nov. 4) concerns a death-row inmate's claim of intellectual disability.
* Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission (Nov. 9) involves "just compensation" for natural gas pipeline rights of way.
* Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC (Nov. 10) concerns the Department of Labor's power to collect money from seasonal farm worker visa program violators.
Executive Summary
The Supreme Court has scheduled seven hours of oral arguments for November, focusing on several high-stakes disputes involving constitutional rights, federal authority, and administrative law. Key cases include a challenge by a Catholic preschool against Colorado's universal preschool program, where the court must decide if the state's neutrality rules constitute religious discrimination under the First Amendment. Simultaneously, the court will evaluate whether a federal inmate can sue officials for medical neglect under the Bivens doctrine, a legal pathway the current court has historically been reluctant to expand.
Beyond these highlighted disputes, the November session addresses diverse legal questions, including the rights of death-row inmates to file secondary petitions for relief, the definition of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases involving energy infrastructure, and the Department of Labor's enforcement powers regarding seasonal farm worker visas. These cases collectively reflect ongoing judicial tensions between individual constitutional claims and the scope of government immunity or regulatory authority.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is a straightforward procedural update on the judicial calendar, providing a neutral roadmap of upcoming legal conflicts. It accurately identifies the primary legal precedents—such as Employment Division v. Smith and Bivens—that will serve as the battlegrounds for these decisions.
The pattern here is one of legal tension between institutional stability and individual exception. In the religious freedom case, the core conflict is whether "neutral and generally applicable" laws are truly neutral when they clash with deeply held religious tenets. In the prisoner cases, the pattern is the gradual erosion of the Bivens remedy, signaling a systemic shift toward shielding federal officials from personal liability.
The driving paradigm is a struggle over the boundaries of state and federal power. There is an unstated assumption that the Court's interpretation of "neutrality" and "immunity" will either expand or contract the sphere of citizen agency against the state. If Bivens is further restricted, the cost is borne by incarcerated individuals who lose a primary mechanism for accountability. If the religious exemption is expanded, the second-order consequence may be a fragmented application of civil rights protections in public-funded programs.
Patterns detected: none
If this were a coordinated influence campaign, a bad actor would weaponize these cases by framing them as a binary war between "religious liberty" and "civil rights," or "law and order" versus "criminal privilege," using emotive language to trigger partisan outrage before the arguments even begin. The current presentation is clean and avoids these structural attack patterns.
Bridge Questions:
1. Does a "neutral" law remain neutral if its practical effect is to exclude a specific class of institutions from public funding?
2. What alternative mechanisms for accountability exist for federal prisoners if the Bivens remedy is entirely extinguished?
3. How does the definition of "just compensation" change when the beneficiary is a private entity exercising federal power?
Sentinel — Human
This text functions as a factual summary of an upcoming Supreme Court docket, exhibiting the structured, precise language typical of legal or journalistic reporting rather than synthetic narrative generation.