Court turns down several cases, including on filing fees for indigent prisoners and ability of felons to possess guns

SCOTUSblog

by Amy Howe

March 2, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The Supreme Court declined to hear several significant cases on Monday, including one involving filing fees for indigent prisoners and another regarding gun possession by felons. Over objections from the court’s three Democratic appointees, the justices rejected Johnson v. High Desert State Prison, which challenged whether indigent prisoners in joint lawsuits could share a $350 filing fee or were required to pay it individually. The case stemmed from a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by three men incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, who faced harsh conditions and sought permission to proceed as indigents, allowing them to pay fees in installments under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Lower courts ruled that each plaintiff must pay the full fee. Justice Elena Kagan expressed dissent, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued the lower court’s decision was likely incorrect, highlighting the financial burden on indigent prisoners and the importance of resolving this recurring legal issue. In another declined case, the justices refrained from addressing the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting felons from possessing guns. The Court turned down petitions involving a woman convicted of check fraud and a man charged with selling drugs while carrying a firearm. While the Court did not rule on broader bans related to assault rifles or large-capacity magazines, this decision leaves existing gun possession laws for felons unchanged. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent emphasized that the current interpretation forces indigent prisoners to shoulder significant financial burdens, contrary to the intent of the PLRA. The Supreme Court also rejected other cases involving baseball’s antitrust exemption, Alabama’s ban on begging, and challenges to Michigan’s voter roll maintenance efforts. These decisions highlight the court’s focus on avoiding precedents that could set broader legal standards for indigent prisoners or public safety issues. The justices’ reluctance to engage with these cases leaves lower courts to grapple with critical legal questions, underscoring the high stakes of financial and legal barriers faced by marginalized groups in the criminal justice system.

Verticals

legalpolitics

Originally published on SCOTUSblog on 3/2/2026