Supreme Court Sets January Calendar: Six-Person Juries and a Shrine

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday released its January argument calendar, scheduling six cases over five days — arguments will run Jan. 11-13 and again Jan. 19-20. The headline entries arrive on consecutive days: a Florida man's constitutional challenge to six-person juries on Jan. 13, and a religious zoning dispute over a proposed shrine to the Virgin Mary on Jan. 20. The docket also brings Apple back to the Court in its long-running fight with Epic Games. That is a busy fortnight for a bench that only occasionally explains itself.

What does Kian v. Florida ask?

In Kian v. Florida, argued Jan. 13, the justices will decide whether, under the Constitution, a defendant charged with a serious felony has a right to a 12-person jury. Florida is one of the few states that routinely empanels six jurors for serious criminal trials. If the Court says the Sixth Amendment demands twelve, the practical consequence would be considerable: every felony conviction obtained before a half-size jury in the affected states would face scrutiny, and courts would need to convene — and pay for — twice as many jurors in serious cases. A jury of one's peers, it turns out, may be a matter of arithmetic.

What is the religious zoning case about?

One week after Kian, on Jan. 20, the Court hears Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist v. Frederic. A Catholic church in northern Kentucky wants to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on its own property. A couple who live across the street oppose the plans. The question presented is whether a land-use regulation that bars a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a "substantial burden" on religious exercise under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act — a statute Congress enacted in 2000 to expand religious-freedom protections for prisoners and for religious organizations challenging zoning laws. The ruling will tell municipalities and churches alike where the statute's line sits. Land-use lawyers on both sides of the aisle will take note.

What else is on the January docket?

The remaining four arguments, in order:

• Montoya Palacios v. Liggins (Jan. 11) — whether a habeas petition challenging civil immigration detention is a "civil action" under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which would allow a prevailing detainee to recover attorney's fees if the government's position was not "substantially justified."
• Apple Inc. v. Epic Games (Jan. 11) — whether a litigant can be held in contempt for violating the "spirit" of an injunction that is silent about the conduct at issue, or whether contempt requires violation of an order that clearly and unambiguously forbids it.
• RiseandShine Corp. v. Pepsico, Inc. (Jan. 12) — whether a trademark's "inherent strength" is a question of law, decided by a judge, or a question of fact, normally decided by a jury.
• Marschner v. Marschner (Jan. 19) — whether the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, which bars division of disability-based retirement pay and retirement pay a servicemember waives to receive disability pay, requires state courts to refuse enforcing a divorce-settlement provision obligating a veteran to compensate his ex-wife if he began receiving disability payments — and consequently less retirement pay — after the divorce.

What does the calendar mean for practitioners?

Each case carries a distinct practice consequence. Immigration counsel await clarity on fee recovery in detention challenges; injunction litigants, including every platform operator subject to compliance orders, will learn whether the "spirit" of a decree can trigger contempt. Trademark practitioners get a judge-or-jury allocation question that will shape how they plead and prove strength of a mark. Family-law attorneys handling military divorces will read Marschner closely, since it determines whether contractual offset clauses survive federal preemption. Six cases, five days, and a great many briefs.