{"id":2652859,"date":"2026-09-01T07:57:02","date_gmt":"2026-09-01T11:57:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignthe-federalists-guide-to-the-2026-supreme-court-term\/"},"modified":"2026-09-01T08:05:25","modified_gmt":"2026-09-01T12:05:25","slug":"utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignthe-federalists-guide-to-the-2026-supreme-court-term","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignthe-federalists-guide-to-the-2026-supreme-court-term\/","title":{"rendered":"The Federalist&#8217;s Guide To The 2026 Supreme Court Term"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">18<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Futm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignthe-federalists-guide-to-the-2026-supreme-court-term%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2652859&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The upcoming 2026-2027 Supreme Court term features several high-profile cases covering a range of significant policy issues:<\/p>\n<p>1. Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County involves climate change litigation where Colorado authorities sued fossil fuel companies over their contributions to climate-related damages. The Supreme Court will decide whether federal law preempts state-law climate claims.<\/p>\n<p>2. Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins address Second Amendment challenges to bans on assault weapons. The Court will consider whether such bans violate constitutional rights, with oral arguments scheduled for fall 2026.<\/p>\n<p>3. St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy concerns religious objections to Colorado\u2019s preschool nondiscrimination law that conflicts with religious beliefs. The court will examine whether such laws infringe on religious rights and their interpretation under First Amendment doctrine.<\/p>\n<p>4. International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson involves laws delaying parental notification for <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/minnesota-transgender-healthcare-policies-under-scrutiny-after-shooter-expressed-regret-with-transitioning\/\" title=\"Minnesota trans... healthcare policies under scrutiny after shooter expressed \u2018regret\u2019 with transitioning\">minors seeking gender-affirming treatment<\/a>. The case questions parental rights and the constitutionality of related statutes, with the Court scheduled to hear arguments.<\/p>\n<p>5. Wassily v. Blanche focuses on noncitizens with prior asylum status and their eligibility to adjust to lawful permanent resident status after their asylum is terminated. The Supreme Court will resolve circuit split on this issue.<\/p>\n<p>6.Genalo v. Black involves a Dominican immigrant convicted of assault and detained pending deportation. The Court will review whether prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates due process rights.<\/p>\n<p>7. Grand v. City of University Heights centers on the constitutional rights of a Jewish man seeking to host religious gatherings at his home and the city\u2019s zoning restrictions. The Court will consider religious accommodation under First Amendment and land-use laws.<\/p>\n<p>8. Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota challenges Arizona laws requiring proof of citizenship for voting.The Court will decide if these election laws are consistent with federal statutes and previous decrees.<\/p>\n<p>9. Montoya Palacios v. Liggins involves an immigrant challenging his detention and removal proceedings, seeking to clarify if his detention was unlawful and whether he can obtain attorney&#8217;s fees under the EAJA. The court will address issues of habeas corpus jurisdiction and due process.<\/p>\n<p>10. kian v. Florida considers whether trying a serious criminal charge with a six-person jury, rather of twelve, violates defendants\u2019 Sixth Amendment rights under the Constitution. The Court will examine jury size requirements for serious felonies.<\/p>\n<p>These cases highlight ongoing debates over constitutional rights, federal and state law preemption, religious freedom, immigration, gun control, and election integrity. Oral arguments are scheduled for dates in late 2026, with final decisions expected thereafter.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>Another summer has come and gone, which means that the U.S. Supreme Court is gearing up for yet another blockbuster term. <\/p>\n<p>Like those before it, this year\u2019s docket is piling up with cases touching on some of the biggest policy issues in American society. From religious liberty to parental rights, here is a breakdown of the biggest legal battles set to be argued before the high court during its 2026-2027 term. <\/p>\n<h2><em>Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>This case dates back to early 2018, when the city of Boulder and Boulder County Commissioners sued three Suncor Energy businesses and the Exxon Mobil Corporation. <\/p>\n<p>According to <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/colorado\/supreme-court\/2025\/24sa206.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Justia<\/a>, the Colorado officials alleged that these entities\u2019 \u201cfossil fuel activities contributed to climate change, causing harm to Boulder\u2019s property and residents.\u201d They furthermore \u201csought damages for public and private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, claiming that the [companies] knowingly contributed to climate change while misleading the public about its impacts.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The oil companies\u2019 repeated efforts to have the case moved from state to federal court were rejected by a federal district court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Boulder County District Court also dismissed the companies\u2019 request to dismiss the case, \u201crejecting their arguments that Boulder\u2019s claims were preempted by federal law, including the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/crs-product\/RL30853\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Clean Air Act (CAA)<\/a> and federal common law.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>The Colorado Supreme Court sided with the city and commissioners in May 2025. The Centennial State\u2019s highest court ruled that Boulder\u2019s claims were not preempted by federal law and permitted the lawsuit to move forward.<\/p>\n<p>The energy giants <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-170\/369227\/20250808130855966_Suncor_pet.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petitioned<\/a> the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case in August 2025. They asked the justices to address the question of whether \u201cfederal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>SCOTUS <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/02\/23\/scotus-takes-up-oil-companies-challenge-to-colorado-citys-climate-lawfare\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">agreed<\/a> to take up the matter in February 2026. In addition to considering the question presented by petitioners, the court will also determine whether it \u201chas statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear th[e] case.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>[READ:[READ:<a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/02\/23\/scotus-takes-up-oil-companies-challenge-to-colorado-citys-climate-lawfare\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">SCOTUS Takes Up Oil Companies\u2019 Challenge To Colorado City\u2019s Climate Lawfare<\/a>]<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Oral arguments are <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/oral_arguments\/argument_calendars\/MonthlyArgumentCalOctober2026.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">scheduled<\/a> for Oct. 5, 2026. <\/p>\n<h2><em>Viramontes v. Cook County<\/em> and <em>Grant v. Higgins<\/em><\/h2>\n<p><em><strong>Viramontes v. Cook County<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>This case\u2019s origins can be traced back to 2021, when resident Cutberto Viramontes filed a lawsuit challenging Cook County, Illinois\u2019 ban on the possession and transfer of AR-15s and similar semiautomatic firearms (so-called \u201cassault weapons\u201d). He argued that the prohibition violated his Second and 14th Amendment rights.<\/p>\n<p>The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/district-courts\/illinois\/ilndce\/1:2021cv04595\/406666\/129\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">sided<\/a> with Cook County in spring 2024, with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca7\/24-1437\/24-1437-2025-06-02.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">following suit<\/a> in June 2025. In doing so, the lower courts pointed to a 2023 7th Circuit <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca7\/23-1353\/23-1353-2023-11-03.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ruling<\/a> on a series of state and municipal laws banning \u201cassault weapons\u201d and large-capacity magazines that they said warranted dismissal of Viramontes\u2019 challenge. <\/p>\n<p>Viramontes filed a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-238\/370875\/20250827115014594_25-%20Petition.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petition<\/a> with SCOTUS in August 2025, in which he asked the justices to consider the question of whether the Second and 14th Amendments \u201cguarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.\u201d <\/p>\n<p><em><strong>Grant v. Higgins<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<p>Dating back to June 2023, this case deals with a similar challenge to Connecticut\u2019s \u201cassault weapons\u201d ban. Much like in <em>Viramontes<\/em>, the <em>Grant<\/em> plaintiffs <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca2\/23-1162\/23-1162-2025-08-22.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">alleged<\/a> that the state\u2019s restrictions on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles unlawfully infringed on their Second Amendment rights. They also <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-566\/383954\/20251107165354155_25-%20Petition.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">sought<\/a> a preliminary injunction blocking the law\u2019s enforcement.<\/p>\n<p>The district court rejected this request in August 2023. As described by <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca2\/23-1162\/23-1162-2025-08-22.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Justia<\/a>, the lower court argued that plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim and that they \u201cfailed to demonstrate that the regulated weapons and magazines were commonly used for self-defense.\u201d The court further ruled that \u201cthe state\u2019s restrictions were consistent with the nation\u2019s historical tradition of regulating unusually dangerous weapons.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca2\/23-1162\/23-1162-2025-08-22.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">affirmed<\/a> the district court\u2019s ruling in August 2025. In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-566\/383954\/20251107165354155_25-%20Petition.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petitioning<\/a> the Supreme Court several months later, they asked the justices to address whether the Second and 14th Amendments \u201cguarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>After months of consideration, the high court <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/07\/01\/scotus-will-decide-constitutionality-of-so-called-assault-weapons-bans\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">agreed<\/a> to take up <em>Viramontes<\/em> and <em>Grant<\/em> consolidated in late June 2026 and answer the question presented in the former.<\/p>\n<p>A date for oral arguments has not been announced. <\/p>\n<p><strong>[READ:[READ:<a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/08\/05\/legal-specialists-preview-upcoming-scotus-cases-on-assault-weapons-bans\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Legal Specialists Preview Upcoming SCOTUS Cases On \u2018Assault Weapons\u2019 Bans<\/a>]<\/strong><\/p>\n<h2><em>St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>This case\u2019s origins can be <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-581\/384425\/20251113161200771_No.-__Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">traced back<\/a> to 2020, when Colorado voters approved a ballot measure authorizing the establishment of a state-funded \u201cuniversal\u201d preschool program. The Colorado General Assembly subsequently codified the program into law, with participating preschools \u2014 both public and private \u2014 set to receive funding beginning in the 2023-2024 school year.<\/p>\n<p>As part of the program, however, participating schools are required to sign a nondiscrimination agreement, which \u201cmandates that preschools offer equal enrollment opportunities regardless of characteristics such as race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, income, or disability,\u201d according to <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca10\/24-1267\/24-1267-2025-09-30.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Justia<\/a>. This prompted plaintiffs \u2014 two parents, two Catholic parishes, their preschools, and the Archdiocese of Denver \u2014 to challenge the mandate\u2019s legality under the First Amendment. They argued that the requirement unlawfully infringes on their sincerely held religious beliefs \u2014 specifically those centered around sexual orientation and so-called \u201cgender identity.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado largely ruled against the challengers in June 2024. Per Justia, the lower court rejected their First Amendment claims, denied their request that an injunction be issued blocking the requirement\u2019s enforcement, and dismissed the archdiocese for lack of standing. The court did, however, bar Colorado from \u201cenforcing the nondiscrimination requirement as to religious affiliation for as long as a congregation preference existed, a ruling not challenged on appeal.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiffs suffered another loss upon appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In agreeing with the district court, the 10th Circuit <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca10\/24-1267\/24-1267-2025-09-30.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ruled<\/a> in September 2025 that the state\u2019s requirement is a generally applicable law that \u201cdoes not target religious status or use.\u201d The appellate court further \u201crejected the plaintiffs\u2019 expressive association claim\u201d and \u201cconcluded that the requirement is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of ensuring equal access to preschool,\u201d according to Justia. <\/p>\n<p>With nowhere left to turn, St. Mary Catholic Parish and its co-plaintiffs <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-581\/384425\/20251113161200771_No.-__Petition%20for%20a%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petitioned<\/a> the Supreme Court to consider their case in November 2025. In doing so, they asked the court to address three questions: \u201cWhether proving a lack of general applicability under <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/1989\/88-1213\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Employment Division v. Smith<\/a><\/em>  requires showing unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct;\u201d \u201cWhether <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2021\/20-1088\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Carson v. Makin<\/a><\/em>  displaces the rule of <em>Employment Division v. Smith<\/em> only when the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-to-decide-whether-colorados-universal-preschool-program-can-exclude-catholic-families\/\" title=\"... To Decide If CO School Program Can Exclude Catholics\">government explicitly excludes religious people<\/a> and institutions;\u201d and \u201cWhether <em>Employment Division v. Smith<\/em> should be overruled.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>As Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway described in her bestselling book, <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.barnesandnoble.com\/w\/alito-mollie-hemingway\/1147952913\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Alito<\/a><\/em>, the high court\u2019s <em>Smith<\/em> ruling permitted Oregon \u201cto deny unemployment benefits to a Native American worker who was fired for using peyote, a controlled substance, even though his use was for religious purposes.\u201d Hemingway noted how the decision \u201crepresented a change in how the Court evaluated laws that incidentally impinge on someone\u2019s exercise of his religion,\u201d with the court effectively \u201cholding that the First Amendment does not require religious exemptions from a \u2018neutral general law of applicability.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The justices <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/04\/20\/scotus-to-decide-whether-colorados-universal-preschool-program-can-exclude-catholic-families\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">announced<\/a> in April 2026 that they would take up the <em>St. Mary<\/em> case. They did not agree to address the third question of whether <em>Smith<\/em> should be overruled, however. <\/p>\n<p>Oral arguments are <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/oral_arguments\/argument_calendars\/MonthlyArgumentCalNovember2026.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">scheduled<\/a> for Nov. 3, 2026. <\/p>\n<p><strong>[READ:[READ:<a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/04\/20\/scotus-to-decide-whether-colorados-universal-preschool-program-can-exclude-catholic-families\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">SCOTUS To Decide Whether Colorado\u2019s \u2018Universal\u2019 Preschool Program Can Exclude Catholic Families<\/a>]<\/strong><\/p>\n<h2><em>International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>This legal dispute <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-840\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">traces back<\/a> to 2023, when Washington state amended its laws governing parental notification for runaway children. As <a href=\"https:\/\/fedsoc.org\/events\/litigation-update-international-partners-for-ethical-care-v-ferguson\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">described<\/a> by The Federalist Society, these changes \u201cdelay[ed] notification and reunification of a runaway child with his or her parents if that child claims to be receiving or requests\u201d so-called \u201cgender-affirming treatment\u201d \u2014 aka \u201ccare\u201d that promotes transgenderism.<\/p>\n<p>According to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-840\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Oyez<\/a>, a group of parents whose children suffer from gender dysphoria filed a lawsuit challenging the laws not long after their enactment. They argued that the statutes \u201cviolated their constitutional rights to direct their children\u2019s upbringing, refuse medical treatment on their children\u2019s behalf, raise their children consistent with their religious faith, and speak freely on matters of gender.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The district court dismissed the challenge in May 2024 over an alleged lack of standing to bring the suit. A panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld this verdict in July 2025 and later <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca9\/24-3661\/24-3661-2025-12-05.html?__cf_chl_f_tk=kmtdFBqQYM6dg5.yxl3QT1fd7x4FC1llEYlMbUoSyPg-1782761721-1.0.1.1-8W3DbANpUJQ_5VuKfas49QmMKJnhUm7TflfQfrhcbOw\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">denied<\/a> plaintiffs\u2019 request to rehear the case en banc (a hearing by the full court) in December 2025. <\/p>\n<p>The plaintiffs <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-840\/391642\/20260113192137323_Petition%20for%20Cert%20w%20Appx%201.13.26.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petitioned<\/a> SCOTUS to take up their case the following month. They asked the justices to address, \u201cWhether parents have standing to challenge a law or policy that deliberately displaces their decision-making role as to \u2018gender transitions\u2019 of their children, and in so doing creates present and likely future impediments to their ability to parent their children as they deem best for them.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/06\/29\/from-parental-rights-to-elections-here-are-3-major-cases-scotus-just-agreed-to-hear\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">agreed<\/a> to hear the case for its next term in late June 2026.<\/p>\n<p>A date for oral arguments has not been announced. <\/p>\n<h2><em>Wassily v. Blanche<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>This case deals with a pair of noncitizens who were granted asylum in America after arriving in the 1990s but later committed crimes. According to <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca2\/22-6247\/22-6247-2025-08-07.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Justia<\/a>, \u201cone was convicted of stalking and child endangerment, the other of multiple driving while intoxicated offenses.\u201d The federal government sought to revoke their asylum status on the grounds that their actions amounted to \u201cparticularly serious crimes,\u201d and moved to deport them as a result.<\/p>\n<p>While immigration judges initially affirmed these decisions, the noncitizens moved to change their status to lawful permanent resident (LPR). Following a drawn-out legal battle, the Board of Immigration Appeals ultimately upheld the government\u2019s opposition to such changes.<\/p>\n<p>The noncitizens then brought their cases to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca2\/22-6247\/22-6247-2025-08-07.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ruled<\/a> in August 2025 that federal law \u201crequires a noncitizen to have current asylum status to be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status,\u201d as described by Justia. The court further \u201cconcluded that a past grant of asylum is insufficient if that status has since been terminated.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The challengers <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.sanity.io\/files\/pito4za5\/production\/3ac81c7ef16a1a8bcd216b1248e998ea39812507.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petitioned<\/a> SCOTUS to take up the case in January 2026. They asked the justices to address this question: \u201cWhether noncitizens who were \u2018granted asylum,\u2019 but whose asylum was later terminated, are eligible for adjustment to LPR status under [the Immigration and Nationality Act\u2019s] Section 1159(b) (as the Fifth Circuit held), or are categorically ineligible (as the Second and Fourth Circuits held)?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/cases\/wassily-v-blanche\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">agreed<\/a> to take up the case in late June 2026.<\/p>\n<p>A date for oral arguments has not been announced. <\/p>\n<h2><em>Genalo v. Black<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>This case centers around Keisy G.M., a Dominican national who became a green card holder in 2011. After a physical altercation in New York the following year, G.M. ultimately plead guilty in 2015 to \u201csecond-degree assault and was sentenced to two years in prison and three years of supervised release,\u201d according to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-886\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Oyez<\/a>. <\/p>\n<p>U.S. immigration officials arrested G.M. in October 2020 and initiated proceedings to remove him from the country based on his 2015 conviction. Per <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2026\/06\/court-agrees-to-hear-three-new-cases-including-on-the-constitutionality-of-six-person-juries\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">SCOTUSblog<\/a>, he was in custody for 21 months as the government aimed to deport him, and \u201cwas eventually released under an order issued by another court, but his challenge to his detention continued.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sided with G.M. in 2024. The panel <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.sanity.io\/files\/pito4za5\/production\/7b20dc707cdb29c5c4a26a9beb39344781840a97.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ruled<\/a> that his detention \u201chad become unreasonably prolonged\u201d and that the \u201cconstitutional guarantee of due process precludes a noncitizen\u2019s unreasonably prolonged detention under section 1226(c) [of the Immigration and Nationality Act] without a bond hearing.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Trump administration <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.sanity.io\/files\/pito4za5\/production\/ffa43ae1d827c50317f5481d00f6f384ddb5b22f.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petitioned<\/a> the Supreme Court to take up the case in January 2026. It asked the justices to address the question of whether \u201cthere is a point at which an alien\u2019s detention under\u201d the contested INA provision, \u201cpending a decision on whether he is to be removed, becomes \u2018unreasonably prolonged,\u2019 such that due process requires a bond hearing.\u201d It also asked the justices to answer \u201cwhether, if so, due process in such a bond hearing requires placing the burden on the government to justify the alien\u2019s continued detention by clear and convincing evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>While <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/06\/16\/supreme-court-to-hear-major-case-on-trump-admins-detention-of-illegal-aliens\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">announcing<\/a> in June 2026 that it will consider these questions, SCOTUS also said that it will address a question <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2026\/06\/court-agrees-to-hear-three-new-cases-including-on-the-constitutionality-of-six-person-juries\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">raised<\/a> by G.M.\u2019s legal team in their opposition to review. That is, whether G.M.\u2019s case is <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/moot\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">moot<\/a> since he was released in 2022.<\/p>\n<p>Oral arguments are <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/oral_arguments\/argument_calendars\/MonthlyArgumentCalOctober2026.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">scheduled<\/a> for Oct. 13, 2026. <\/p>\n<p><strong>[READ:[READ:<a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/06\/16\/supreme-court-to-hear-major-case-on-trump-admins-detention-of-illegal-aliens\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Supreme Court To Hear Major Case On Trump Admin\u2019s Detention Of Illegal Aliens<\/a>]<\/strong><\/p>\n<h2><em>Grand v. City of University Heights<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>This case began in early 2021, when Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew from University Heights, Ohio, sent an email to friends in the community <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-965\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">inviting<\/a> them to his residence for a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.merriam-webster.com\/dictionary\/minyan\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">minyan<\/a>, a quorum of at least ten adult males, as required by his faith. As The Federalist previously <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/06\/23\/ohio-man-had-to-petition-scotus-to-host-in-home-prayer-group\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">reported<\/a>, \u201cThat email was leaked to others in the town, who reported Grand to the city and asked them to \u2018put a stop to this,\u2019 <a href=\"https:\/\/adflegal.org\/article\/daniel-grand-story\/?reference_code=11038656&#038;utm_medium=bing_paid&#038;utm_source=bing&#038;utm_id=&#038;utm_content=&#038;utm_campaign=brand&#038;utm_term=how+is+alliance+defending+freedom\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">according <\/a>to Alliance Defending Freedom. The next day, Grand received a cease-and-desist letter from the city\u2019s law director ordering him to shut down his illegal \u2018place of religious assembly.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The city informed Grand that he would need to obtain a commercial special-use permit (SUP) in order to host a religious assembly. As described by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-965\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Oyez<\/a>, \u201cGrand applied for an SUP, but the City unexpectedly converted the hearing to a \u2018quasi-judicial\u2019 format \u2014 apparently for the first time in city history \u2014 which locked the evidentiary record at the outset and blocked Grand from submitting additional materials.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In light of such difficulties, Grand withdrew his application. The city\u2019s mayor subsequently \u201cissued a public pronouncement warning that any activities \u2018consistent with\u2019 those of a house of worship still required an SUP, that the City had previously sued and obtained a permanent injunction against another home-based Jewish prayer group, and that neighbors should report any suspicious activity at Grand\u2019s address for enforcement.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Grand then sued the city, alleging violations of his First Amendment and due process rights and the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/crt\/religious-land-use-and-institutionalized-persons-act\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act<\/a>. <\/p>\n<p>The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio sided with the city in its September 2024 ruling. The lower court dismissed Grand\u2019s claims for lack of ripeness, concluding that \u201cthere was no final decision by the relevant local authorities regarding the application of the zoning ordinance to his property,\u201d according to <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca6\/24-3876\/24-3876-2025-11-13.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Justia<\/a>. It also dismissed other claims on the merits. <\/p>\n<p>The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals later <a href=\"https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca6\/24-3876\/24-3876-2025-11-13.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">upheld<\/a> that decision in November 2025. <\/p>\n<p>This prompted Grand to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-965\/396407\/20260217132050131_scan_ajimenez_2026-02-17-12-57-08.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petition<\/a> the Supreme Court in February 2026. In doing so, he asked the justices to address, \u201cWhether the First Amendment\u2019s established chilling-effect doctrine \u2014 under which a credible government threat that deters the exercise of fundamental rights constitutes a complete and independently actionable constitutional injury \u2014 is displaced by[[<a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/473\/172\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Williamson Cty. Planning v. Hamilton Bank<\/em><\/a>\u2019s]land-use finality requirement when a plaintiff alleges that government threats both before and after a Planning Commission meeting chilled religious exercise, worship, and assembly.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The high court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/cases\/grand-v-city-of-university-heights\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">granted<\/a> Grand\u2019s request to hear his case in June 2026.<\/p>\n<p>A date for oral arguments has not been announced. <\/p>\n<p><strong>[READ:[READ:<a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/06\/23\/ohio-man-had-to-petition-scotus-to-host-in-home-prayer-group\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Ohio Man Had To Petition SCOTUS To Host In-Home Prayer Group<\/a>]<\/strong><\/p>\n<h2><em>Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>In 2022, Arizona enacted laws mandating that individuals provide documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) when registering to vote via state registration forms. These statutes also required such proof for residents \u201csubmitting mail-in ballots and voting in presidential contests,\u201d as The Federalist previously <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/08\/10\/republicans-ask-scotus-to-greenlight-arizonas-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-for-voter-registration\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">reported<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>(In Arizona, individuals who do not provide DPOC when registering to vote are <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/01\/12\/elon-musk-rightly-says-arizona-doesnt-verify-federal-voter-citizenship-but-the-feds-dont-let-them\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">permitted<\/a> to do so as \u201cfederal-only voters\u201d and only cast ballots in federal elections).<\/p>\n<p><strong>[RELATED:[RELATED:<a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/01\/12\/elon-musk-rightly-says-arizona-doesnt-verify-federal-voter-citizenship-but-the-feds-dont-let-them\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Elon Musk Rightly Says Arizona Doesn\u2019t Verify Federal Voter Citizenship \u2014 But The Feds Don\u2019t Let Them<\/a>]<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>This prompted Democrats and left-wing organizations to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-1017\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">challenge<\/a> the laws in federal court. They alleged that the statutes violated the NVRA, an existing consent decree, the 14th Amendment\u2019s equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act. It was this point that the RNC intervened to defend the laws.<\/p>\n<p>The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona sided with the leftist challengers in spring 2024. According to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-1017\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Oyez<\/a>, it \u201cenjoin[ed] Arizona\u2019s proof-of-citizenship requirement for state-form applicants (relying on the \u2026 consent decree) and [held] that the NVRA\u2019s 90-day quiet period barred Arizona from systematically canceling noncitizen registrations within 90 days of a federal election.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The GOP appellants filed a motion with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to partially stay (\u201cpause\u201d) the district court\u2019s injunction ahead of the 2024 election on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-1017\/396719\/20260219115214399_RNC%20v.%20MFV%20Cert%20Petition.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">three issues<\/a>: requiring DPOC on the state registration form, for voting by mail, and for voting in presidential contests. While a 9th Circuit motions panel partly granted the request (requiring DPOC for state registration forms), a merits panel for the appellate court quickly overturned that decision.<\/p>\n<p>The Republicans then filed an emergency application with SCOTUS, in which they asked the justices to revoke the lower court injunction pertaining to the three aforementioned DPOC policies. Similar to the 9th Circuit motions panel, the high court partially <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/08\/22\/scotus-partly-restores-arizonas-proof-of-citizenship-voter-requirements-for-2024\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">granted<\/a> that request (5-4) in August 2024 as to the requirement for showing DPOC when registering via state registration forms.<\/p>\n<p>In a February 2025 ruling on the merits of the laws, the 9th Circuit <a href=\"https:\/\/azmirror.com\/2025\/02\/25\/appeals-court-blocks-arizona-laws-targeting-federal-only-voters\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">affirmed<\/a> the district court\u2019s decision against Republicans. The appellate court subsequently <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-1017\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">declined<\/a> to rehear the case en banc (a hearing by the full court) later that year. <\/p>\n<p>The RNC formally <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-1017\/396719\/20260219115214399_RNC%20v.%20MFV%20Cert%20Petition.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petitioned<\/a> the Supreme Court in February 2026. It asked the justices to answer two questions: First, does the NVRA \u201cor a federal consent decree prohibit Arizona from requiring voter-registration applicants to produce \u2018satisfactory evidence\u2019 of U.S. citizenship when registering with a state registration form?\u201d Second, does the NVRA prevent Arizona \u201cfrom implementing a program within 90 days of a federal election to cancel the registrations of voters who are not U.S. citizens?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The high court <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/06\/29\/from-parental-rights-to-elections-here-are-3-major-cases-scotus-just-agreed-to-hear\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">revealed<\/a> in June 2026 that it would take up the case for its upcoming term.<\/p>\n<p>A date for oral arguments has not been announced. <\/p>\n<h2><em>Montoya Palacios v. Liggins<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>This case centers around Kevin Isaac Montoya Palacios, a Salvadoran national who was apprehended and placed in removal proceedings in 2016 for illegally entering the United States. An immigration judge deemed Montoya Palacios removable as charged in 2023, but \u201csimultaneously granted him protection barring his removal to El Salvador under the <a href=\"https:\/\/portal.ice.gov\/pdf\/LOPPdf\/AsylumPacket\/Asylum-Checklist-Packet_(English)508.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Convention Against Torture<\/a>,\u201d according to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-1223\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Oyez<\/a>. He was subsequently released from custody and placed under federal supervision.<\/p>\n<p>The Department of Homeland Security revoked Montoya Palacios\u2019 order of supervision and took him into custody in December 2025. The government intended to deport him to Mexico \u2014 a \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/03\/12\/1st-circuit-halts-rogue-judges-bid-to-stop-trumps-third-country-deportations\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">third country<\/a>.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>This prompted Montoya Palacios to <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.sanity.io\/files\/pito4za5\/production\/a403c9cbb30918d3a578863585a70301031f1a14.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">file<\/a> a petition for a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/habeas_corpus\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">writ of habeas corpus<\/a> days later challenging the legality of his detention. In doing so, he sought his immediate release and an award of attorney\u2019s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). As described by <a href=\"https:\/\/news.bloomberglaw.com\/us-law-week\/supreme-court-takes-on-attorney-fees-for-immigrant-petitioners\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Bloomberg Law<\/a>, the EAJA \u201callows certain civil litigants to seek attorney fees from the government if they win their cases.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>While the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted Montoya Palacios\u2019 request for release in January 2026 after finding his \u201ccontinued detention\u201d to be unlawful, it rejected his request for attorney\u2019s fees under existing circuit court precedent. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals later affirmed that decision in March.<\/p>\n<p>Montoya Palacios <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.sanity.io\/files\/pito4za5\/production\/36666e938cd74bcbcba0e91c440fe4a96220989a.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petitioned<\/a> SCOTUS in April 2026 and asked the justices to address the question of whether, under the EAJA, \u201c\u2018any civil action\u2019 encompasses an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge civil immigration detention.\u201d The high court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/cases\/palacios-v-liggins\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">agreed<\/a> in June 2026 to hear the case.<\/p>\n<p>A date for oral arguments has not been announced. <\/p>\n<h2><em>Kian v. Florida<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>This case <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-6623\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">centers<\/a> around Florida-based chiropractor Hamed Kian, who was charged by the state with five counts related to practicing with a suspended license. Practicing medicine on a suspended license is <a href=\"https:\/\/www.husseinandwebber.com\/crimes\/theft-fraud\/unlicensed-practice-of-healthcare-profession\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">considered<\/a> a serious felony offense under state law. <\/p>\n<p>In <a href=\"https:\/\/www.leg.state.fl.us\/statutes\/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&#038;URL=0900-0999\/0913\/Sections\/0913.10.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Florida<\/a>, all criminal cases are tried by a six-person jury, with the exception of capital cases (12-person jury). As such, Kian was tried and convicted by a six-person jury on all five counts, with the trial court sentencing him to a year and one day in prison, followed by several years of probation. <\/p>\n<p>Kian argued that the state\u2019s \u201ctrying him before a six-person jury\u201d as opposed to a 12-person jury in a serious criminal case violated his Sixth Amendment rights. He subsequently appealed to the 4th District Court of Appeal of Florida, which affirmed his conviction and sentencing without a written opinion in October 2025.<\/p>\n<p>Kian <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/25\/25-6623\/391211\/20260109080909352_Kian%20In%20Forma%20P.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">petitioned<\/a> the Supreme Court directly to take up the case in January 2026. According to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2026\/25-6623\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Oyez<\/a>, \u201cthe Florida Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review district court decisions issued without a written opinion.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>The high court <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/cases\/kian-v-florida\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">agreed<\/a> to take the case in June 2026 and will decide the question of whether Kian was \u201cdeprived of his right, under the Sixth and 14th Amendments, to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a serious felony.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>A date for oral arguments has not been announced. <\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>SCOTUS 2026-27: Major cases on policy issues<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":539,"featured_media":2652860,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Supreme-Court.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33651],"tags":[84952,6919,32275],"class_list":["post-2652859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-western-journal","tag-2026-term","tag-federalist","tag-supreme-court"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Supreme-Court.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2652859","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/539"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2652859"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2652859\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2652867,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2652859\/revisions\/2652867"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2652860"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2652859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2652859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2652859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}