Blanche v. Ozurumba
No. 25-1343 · October Term 2026 · Civil Rights
Before oral argument the model reads the case's structure and its docket: amicus briefs by side, the Solicitor General's position, the parties' types, the issue area, and which way the lower court ruled, against each justice's record on all of those. That separates the nine, and the table shows it. It does not yet separate cases well enough for a case-level number: the calibration chosen for that arm caps how sure nine correlated votes may make a case, so case-level odds wait for the transcript.
The case
Todd Blanche, the Attorney General, is petitioning the Supreme Court against Izuchukwu Ozurumba, an alien deemed removable and ineligible for immigration benefits due to alleged material support for a terrorist organization. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled on this matter. The Supreme Court must now determine if, under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(Vl), material support to a terrorist organization must directly advance the organization's actual commission of terrorism to trigger the immigration bar.
- Interpretation of 'material support': Does the statute require a direct link between the support and an act of terrorism, or is general support sufficient?
- Statutory construction: The Court will examine the plain text of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(Vl) and potentially its legislative history.
- Immigration law implications: The decision will clarify the scope of the 'material support' bar for aliens seeking immigration benefits or resisting removal.
AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-29. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.
Question presented, as filed
An alien is removable and ineligible for various immigration benefits if he has provided material support to a terrorist organization. The question presented is whether, under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(Vl), such support must advance the organization's actual commission of terrorism to qualify for that bar.
The nine
Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Civil Rights cases, and when the lower court ruled liberal; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.
| Justice | Predicted | Overall | This issue | Lower court liberal | At argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John G. Roberts Republican appointee · since OT2005 Chief Justice Roberts often prioritizes statutory text and congressional intent, which could lead him to consider whether the plain language of the statute requires a direct link to a terrorist act. | 69% Blanche | 68% for the petitioner · 1,512 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 248 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 730 votes | not yet argued |
Clarence Thomas Republican appointee · since OT1991 Justice Thomas typically adheres to originalism and textualism, suggesting he would focus on the precise wording of the statute and its meaning at the time of enactment, potentially favoring a broad interpretation of 'material support' if the text supports it. | 76% Blanche | 59% for the petitioner · 2,801 votes | 57% Civil Rights · 464 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 1,344 votes | not yet argued |
Samuel A. Alito Republican appointee · since OT2005 Justice Alito often takes a strict view of statutory interpretation, emphasizing the literal meaning of the text, which might lead him to consider whether the statute explicitly requires a nexus to an actual act of terrorism. | 71% Blanche | 62% for the petitioner · 1,469 votes | 65% Civil Rights · 244 votes | 79% lower court liberal · 699 votes | not yet argued |
Sonia Sotomayor Democratic appointee · since OT2009 Justice Sotomayor often considers the practical implications and potential for harsh outcomes in immigration cases, which could lead her to scrutinize whether a broad interpretation of 'material support' creates undue hardship or extends beyond congressional intent. | 54% Blanche | 61% for the petitioner · 1,192 votes | 61% Civil Rights · 192 votes | 48% lower court liberal · 560 votes | not yet argued |
Elena Kagan Democratic appointee · since OT2010 Justice Kagan often employs a pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation, considering both text and purpose, which could lead her to examine the legislative intent behind the 'material support' provision and its broader context in immigration law. | 54% Blanche | 63% for the petitioner · 1,072 votes | 60% Civil Rights · 171 votes | 51% lower court liberal · 495 votes | not yet argued |
Neil M. Gorsuch Republican appointee · since OT2016 Justice Gorsuch is a textualist who emphasizes the ordinary public meaning of statutory language, suggesting he would closely analyze the specific phrasing of 'material support' and whether it inherently implies a direct connection to a terrorist act. | 69% Blanche | 65% for the petitioner · 592 votes | 70% Civil Rights · 99 votes | 75% lower court liberal · 278 votes | not yet argued |
Brett M. Kavanaugh Republican appointee · since OT2018 Justice Kavanaugh often focuses on clear statutory language and established legal principles, which could lead him to consider whether the text of the statute unambiguously requires material support to advance actual terrorism. | 69% Blanche | 69% for the petitioner · 498 votes | 64% Civil Rights · 83 votes | 77% lower court liberal · 235 votes | not yet argued |
Amy Coney Barrett Republican appointee · since OT2020 Justice Barrett often prioritizes textualist and originalist methods of interpretation, which would likely lead her to a close reading of the statutory language to determine if it mandates a direct link to the commission of terrorism. | 69% Blanche | 66% for the petitioner · 360 votes | 72% Civil Rights · 61 votes | 76% lower court liberal · 168 votes | not yet argued |
Ketanji Brown Jackson Democratic appointee · since OT2022 Justice Jackson often considers the practical application of statutes and their impact, particularly in areas like immigration, which could lead her to examine the consequences of a broad versus narrow interpretation of 'material support' in this context. | 54% Blanche | 59% for the petitioner · 244 votes | 47% Civil Rights · 38 votes | 38% lower court liberal · 108 votes | not yet argued |
Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the structural arm: the docket, the parties, the issue and the lower court, with no transcript yet.
Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-29.