Court grants cases on DOGE data dispute, prisoners’ rights, and what qualifies as “material support” for terrorism

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases for its 2026–27 term. They raise separate questions about access to executive-branch records, immigration law’s definition of material support to terrorism, and when a federal prisoner may appeal a constitutional claim. The Court has granted review; it has not yet ruled on the merits of any of the disputes.

In the DOGE-related case, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sought records under the Freedom of Information Act about communications involving the U.S. DOGE Service. The government challenged discovery into executive-branch records, arguing that the requests intrude on executive authority. Lower courts allowed a narrowed form of discovery, and the Supreme Court will consider the dispute.

Blanche v. Ozurumba concerns a Nigerian asylum seeker who cooked for about six months at a camp associated with the separatist group known as the “Unknown Gunmen.” Immigration officials treated the work as providing material support to a terrorist organization. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the record did not show that the cooking advanced the group’s terrorist activity; the Supreme Court will review what conduct qualifies under the law.

Berry v. United States involves a federal prisoner seeking a certificate of appealability. The question is whether a court may issue that certificate when the claim is foreclosed by precedent in that prisoner’s circuit but recognized in another circuit. The case presents a disagreement among federal appeals courts about the threshold for allowing an appeal.

Together, the cases touch on government transparency, the reach of immigration restrictions, and access to federal habeas review. Their outcomes could clarify rules used by agencies and lower courts, but the grants of review do not signal how the justices will decide. The linked SCOTUSblog report provides the procedural history and questions presented.