This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case was heard before the Supreme Court of the United States.
The case raises questions about the effect of a 4‑1‑4 split decision that lacks stare decisis and about whether the Court should revisit the Sixth Amendment jury‑unanimity rule decided in Apodaca.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Alito asked what a party should do after winning a case decided by a 4‑1‑4 split that has no stare decisis effect.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the Court should revisit the issue of Sixth Amendment jury unanimity that five justices previously decided in Apodaca.
What each side argues
State
The State argues that the decision would create upheaval in the law and raises questions such as whether a 7‑5 split is acceptable.
Mr. Fisher
Mr. Fisher argues that the situation would be different for the reasons he outlined and notes that the Insular Cases were majority decisions of the Court.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned the practical effect of a 4‑1‑4 split decision that lacks stare decisis.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the Court should revisit the Sixth Amendment jury‑unanimity rule decided in Apodaca.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 8e489dd2a42e82fef41e-r1-488c33e78f0921cd.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.