Analysis of the 2025-2026 U.S. Supreme Court Term in Relation to Sustainable Development Goal 16

Introduction: The Judiciary’s Role in Advancing Justice and Strong Institutions

The 2025-2026 term of the United States Supreme Court presents a significant opportunity to evaluate the nation’s progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16), which aims to promote peace, justice, and strong institutions. An analysis by Professor Rory Little of UC Law SF indicates that nearly half of the 31 cases granted review involve criminal law. This focus highlights the judiciary’s critical role in shaping legal frameworks that ensure equal access to justice for all (Target 16.3) and build effective, accountable institutions at all levels (Target 16.6).

Key Cases and Implications for SDG Targets

Several upcoming cases directly address the principles enshrined in SDG 16 and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Three cases are of particular significance:

1. Villarreal v. Texas: This case scrutinizes a defendant’s right to legal counsel, a fundamental component of ensuring equal access to justice (Target 16.3). The Court will determine whether restricting communication between a defendant and their attorney during testimony undermines the rule of law and the right to a fair trial.
2. Case v. Montana: The Court will consider the standard for law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches under the “emergency aid” exception. This case directly impacts the development of accountable and transparent institutions (Target 16.6) by defining the limits of state power and protecting citizens from arbitrary actions, thereby upholding the rule of law.
3. Hamm v. Smith: This case addresses the application of capital punishment to intellectually disabled individuals. It is critically linked to both SDG 16, by ensuring justice is applied fairly, and SDG 10.3, by working to reduce inequalities of outcome and eliminate potentially discriminatory practices within the legal system.

Broader Impact on Institutional Accountability and Sustainable Development

The extensive criminal law docket has wide-ranging implications for the advancement of sustainable development through the strengthening of just and inclusive societies.

• The Court’s decisions will directly influence the interpretation of constitutional protections, which are foundational to the establishment of strong, rights-based institutions as called for in SDG 16.
• Cases concerning sentencing, habeas corpus, and immigration further test the justice system’s capacity to be fair, effective, and non-discriminatory.
• The outcomes will serve as a measure of institutional accountability and the nation’s commitment to upholding the rule of law for all citizens.

Contribution to Quality Education and Public Discourse (SDG 4)

Academic engagement with the Court’s work contributes to SDG 4 (Quality Education) by promoting inclusive and equitable education and lifelong learning opportunities. An upcoming panel discussion at UC Law SF on September 24, featuring legal experts Professor Rory Little, Professor Blaine Bookey, Professor Zachary Price, and Professor Radhika Rao, will facilitate public understanding of these complex legal issues. This event serves as a platform for disseminating knowledge and fostering informed discourse on the judiciary’s role in achieving justice and strengthening democratic institutions.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article’s focus on criminal law, constitutional protections, and the justice system directly connects to the following Sustainable Development Goals:

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     This is the most relevant SDG. The article discusses the Supreme Court’s role in shaping criminal law, which is fundamental to building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. The cases mentioned, concerning the right to legal counsel, police powers, and capital punishment, are central to providing access to justice for all and promoting the rule of law.

   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

     This SDG is relevant because the issues discussed have significant implications for equality within the justice system. The case of Hamm v. Smith, which “weighs how courts should assess intellectual disability in capital cases,” directly addresses the rights and protections for a vulnerable group. Similarly, the right to legal counsel, as discussed in Villarreal v. Texas, is a cornerstone of ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their status, have equal access to justice and are protected from inequalities of outcome.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the specific legal cases and themes in the article, the following targets can be identified:

   • Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

       The article is fundamentally about this target. All three highlighted cases relate to the application of the rule of law and access to justice. Villarreal v. Texas examines the right to legal counsel, a key component of a fair trial. Case v. Montana considers the limits of law enforcement power, which is essential for the rule of law. Hamm v. Smith addresses the application of justice in capital cases for intellectually disabled individuals.

     • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

       The Supreme Court is a primary national institution responsible for ensuring the accountability of the entire justice system. The case of Case v. Montana, which “considers what standard law enforcement must meet to justify entering a home without a warrant,” is a direct examination of the accountability of police institutions.

   • Under SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

     • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

       This target is addressed through the legal questions being considered. The case of Hamm v. Smith, which “revisits a precedent that forbids executing people who are intellectually disabled,” is about ensuring legal protections are in place to prevent unequal outcomes for people with disabilities. The right to unrestricted conversation with an attorney, debated in Villarreal v. Texas, is crucial for ensuring defendants have an equal opportunity to present their case, thereby reducing inequalities in trial outcomes.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article does not provide quantitative statistical data that would align with official SDG indicators. However, it implicitly points to qualitative indicators that can be used to measure the state of justice and the rule of law.

   • Legal Precedents and Rulings: The outcomes of the Supreme Court cases themselves serve as powerful indicators.
     • For Target 16.3 (access to justice), the eventual ruling in Villarreal v. Texas will be an indicator of the strength of a defendant’s right to effective legal counsel.
     • For Target 16.6 (accountable institutions), the standard established by the Court in Case v. Montana for warrantless searches will serve as an indicator of police accountability and the protection of civil liberties.
     • For Target 10.3 (reduced inequalities), the Court’s decision in Hamm v. Smith will be a direct indicator of the legal protections afforded to individuals with intellectual disabilities within the capital punishment system.
   • Number and Nature of Criminal Law Cases: The article notes that “nearly half of the Supreme Court’s 2025–26 term cases involve criminal law.” This high proportion can be seen as an indicator of the ongoing national focus on defining and strengthening constitutional protections, which is a measure of progress towards building strong and just institutions (SDG 16).

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators (as implied by the article)
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.3: Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice for all.	The legal precedent set regarding a defendant’s right to converse with their attorney (Villarreal v. Texas). The legal standard for assessing intellectual disability in capital cases (Hamm v. Smith).
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.	The legal standard set for law enforcement to enter a home without a warrant under the “emergency aid” exception (Case v. Montana).
   SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome.	The legal framework and protections for defendants with intellectual disabilities in capital cases (Hamm v. Smith). The strength of the right to legal counsel as a means of ensuring equal opportunity in legal proceedings (Villarreal v. Texas).

Source: uclawsf.edu