Friday, November 6, 2026Memphis · 62°/45°, TennesseeEst. 2026
Markets · loading
Law & Courts
Law
SCOTUSblog: Court leans toward narrow ruling on inmate's use of habeas
Justices lean toward narrow ruling in Maxwell v. Dinis habeas case
At the Supreme Court, the argument over a federal inmate's bid to speed his move to a halfway house drew skepticism of broad rules from both sides.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument Nov. 2 in Maxwell v. Dinis (No. 25-5930). The question is whether a federal inmate may use the habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. 2241, to challenge the Bureau of Prisons' refusal to apply First Step Act credits and move him sooner to a halfway house or home confinement. The Fifth Circuit had held that habeas is available only if the claim would automatically shorten confinement. Neither the government nor inmate William Maxwell defended that rule, so the Court appointed an amicus to do so. Justice Jackson suggested the Court need not define every case where habeas applies, and Maxwell's lawyer said a narrow ruling would suffice. Several justices showed little interest in the government's argument that a statute bars judicial review of such placements. The Bureau expects to move Maxwell in January 2027, which raises a mootness question and could speed a decision.
Why it mattersThe case will decide how much recourse federal prisoners have in court when the Bureau of Prisons miscalculates early-release credits.
FCC's new TCPA revocation rules take effect Nov. 25, with more changes proposed
The agency refused a 12-month phase-in as courts split on how the robocall law treats texts and consent.
WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission's revised Telephone Consumer Protection Act consent-revocation rules (FCC 26-67) were published in the Federal Register on Oct. 26 and take effect Nov. 25. That date replaces a Jan. 31, 2027 date that had applied to part of the earlier rules. The order allows category-specific revocation for informational calls and texts and lets callers designate exclusive methods for revoking consent. It also widens the sources from which financial institutions may obtain numbers for exempt fraud alerts. A companion further notice asks whether to shorten the 10-business-day deadline to honor opt-outs and whether to require two-way texting and a single-step opt-out from all robocalls. Comments are due Nov. 25 and replies Dec. 28. Courts remain divided: the Seventh Circuit held July 14 in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that texts are not 'telephone calls' under section 227(c)(5), while the Ninth Circuit in Howard v. RNC (Jan. 13) treated texts as calls under 227(b).
Why it mattersLead-generation and marketing firms that rely on text and call consent face a short compliance window and unsettled circuit law.
UPDATEChattanooga airport board fight tests reach of Nashville ruling
State-appointed and locally appointed boards disagree on whether the Tennessee Supreme Court's dismissal of Nashville's case affects Chattanooga's suit.
CHATTANOOGA — The state-appointed Chattanooga Airport Board says this week's Tennessee Supreme Court ruling in the Nashville airport case strengthens its confidence in a state law giving Tennessee control over the board. The locally appointed board's chair, named by Mayor Tim Kelly, says the Nashville case has no bearing on Chattanooga's challenge. The justices dismissed Metro Nashville's three-year-old suit over a 2023 law that let the state appoint most seats on the Nashville International Airport board. A three-judge trial panel had declared that law unconstitutional under the Home Rule provision, which bars private acts aimed at a single city. Chattanooga is in a similar dispute over a 2026 law. The Times Free Press report does not say when a ruling in the Chattanooga case is expected.
Why it mattersThe dispute shows how far Tennessee's Home Rule limits will constrain the state in taking over local authorities after the Nashville dismissal.
India's Supreme Court: 24-hour arrest clock starts at detention, not paperwork
In Sujit Das v. Union of India, the court ordered immediate release of accused held 18 hours before a formal arrest was recorded.
NEW DELHI — India's Supreme Court ruled Nov. 5 in Sujit Das v. Union of India that the constitutional 24-hour limit for bringing a detained person before a magistrate begins when liberty is curtailed, not when investigators record a formal arrest. Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar called any buffer zone for investigation before a recorded arrest unconstitutional under Article 22(2). They found an unexplained 18-hour gap between the end of a search and the formal arrest, in a case involving 11.03 kilograms of methamphetamine tablets. The bench overturned the Tripura High Court's April 29 order denying bail and directed the accused's release. It also told magistrates to record the actual date and time of detention and to verify compliance with the 24-hour rule. The justices voiced reservations about an earlier coordinate-bench decision on narcotics bail but did not rule on it.
Why it mattersThe ruling closes a common loophole in a major democracy's arrest procedure and may influence how comparative-law arguments are framed on pre-arrest detention.
