The second week of October Term 2015 will be more interesting than the first. The Court will take Monday off for the Columbus Day holiday tomorrow, starts with cases about criminal punishment, and then turns to more mundane matters.

On Tuesday, the Court considers whether the Court’s holding in Miller v. Alabama (2012) that mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile murderers are “cruel and unusual punishment” is retroactive on collateral review. Former Louisiana Solicitor General and veteran appellate litigator Kyle Duncan will argue for the state of Louisiana.

After that, argument turns to yet another death penalty case, Hurst v. Florida. This case will determine whether Florida’s sentencing scheme, in which a judge (not a jury) makes factual findings about the eligibility of the defendant for the death penalty, such as the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors, before the judge ultimately passes sentence. This case will be interesting largely because it may bring together originalists like Justice Scalia (among others) with the anti-death-penalty justices. Are the anti-death-penalty justices willing to put aside their distaste for originalism to preserve the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of trial by jury?

On Wednesday, the Court will begin its day by examining whether a lawsuit ceases to be a “case or controversy” under Article III of the Constitution when the plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on the claim, and whether the answer is different just because the claim is part of a class action lawsuit. After that, the Court turns to the arcana of whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the authority under the Federal Power Act to regulate wholesale electric energy markets. Supreme Court litigator Paul Clement will argue for the trade association.

The Court (after it wakes up from the coma induced by an hour of obscure FERC-related acronyms) will return the first week of November.