Supreme Court Opens New Term Oct. 5 With Florida's Six-Person Felony Juries on the Docket

The U.S. Supreme Court opens its October 2026 term on Monday, Oct. 5, and one of the cases waiting on its docket could reshape criminal trials across Florida. In Kian v. Florida, the justices agreed in June to decide whether a defendant charged with a serious felony has a constitutional right to a 12-person jury, a direct challenge to Florida's long-standing practice of trying most noncapital felonies before just six jurors. A ruling against the state could force Florida to overhaul how it seats juries in courthouses from Pensacola to Key West and could revisit a 1970 Supreme Court precedent that began with a Florida case.

The question before the court

The Supreme Court granted review in Kian v. Florida, docket number 25-6623, on June 15, 2026, according to the court's docket. The question presented is whether the petitioner was deprived of his right, under the Sixth and 14th Amendments, to a trial by a 12-person jury when charged with a serious felony.

The petitioner, Hamed Kian, is a Florida chiropractor who was convicted after a trial before a six-member jury, as Florida law allows, according to published case summaries. He argues that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a trial by jury, applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, requires a jury of 12 for serious crimes. Florida's appellate courts upheld his convictions, and he then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oral argument had not been scheduled as of the latest available information, but a proposed briefing schedule would allow the court to hear the case during its December 2026 argument session, according to case trackers. A decision would then be expected by the end of the term, typically in June.

A Florida precedent under review

The case aims squarely at Williams v. Florida, the 1970 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld Florida's use of six-person juries in noncapital criminal cases. In Williams, the court concluded that the number 12 was a historical accident rather than a constitutional requirement, and that a six-person jury could perform the essential functions of a jury.

The court later set limits. In Ballew v. Georgia in 1978, the justices struck down the use of five-person juries in criminal cases, and in Burch v. Louisiana in 1979, they held that six-person juries must reach unanimous verdicts. More recently, in Ramos v. Louisiana in 2020, the court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous verdicts in state criminal trials for serious offenses, overturning a precedent that had allowed split verdicts.

Ramos is one reason the Williams question has come back. That decision leaned heavily on the historical meaning of the jury trial right at the time of the founding, and critics of six-person juries argue that the same historical approach points to a 12-person requirement. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the author of Ramos, wrote a dissent in 2023 when the court declined to hear an earlier Florida six-person jury challenge, Cunningham v. Florida, urging his colleagues to reconsider Williams.

The Supreme Court had turned away similar challenges several times before, which is why the June grant drew wide attention among Florida lawyers and legal scholars. Defense lawyers in Florida had continued to raise the issue in case after case, preserving it for appeal in hopes that the justices would eventually agree to hear it, and Kian became the vehicle.

The court's decision to take Kian now suggests at least four justices, the number needed to grant review, are prepared to look at the question again.

How Florida juries work today

Florida law provides for 12-person juries only in capital cases, those in which the state seeks the death penalty. In other criminal trials, including many serious felonies that carry long prison sentences, the state uses six-person juries.

Even in capital cases, Florida has drawn national attention for its jury rules. A 2023 state law allows a jury to recommend a death sentence with the votes of eight of 12 jurors, rather than requiring a unanimous recommendation, making Florida one of the few states that permits a non-unanimous jury recommendation for death. That law is not directly at issue in Kian, but it has kept the state's approach to juries in the spotlight.

That approach sets Florida apart from nearly every other state. Most states and the federal courts use 12-person juries for felony trials, and Florida's practice has long been cited by legal scholars as an outlier in American criminal procedure.

Supporters of the current system argue that smaller juries save time and money, are easier to seat in busy courthouses, and have been constitutionally approved for more than half a century. Florida's circuit courts handle a very large volume of felony cases, and the ability to seat juries of six has been part of how the system manages that load.

Critics counter that larger juries are more likely to include a broader cross-section of the community, deliberate more thoroughly, and better reflect the historical guarantee the framers wrote into the Constitution.

Who is weighing in

The case has drawn attention from an unusually broad set of groups. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, filed a brief arguing that the Constitution guarantees a 12-person jury, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Constitutional Accountability Center have also filed briefs in the case.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the NAACP filed an amicus brief challenging the constitutionality of Florida's six-person jury law, arguing that the smaller jury size has discriminatory effects, according to the Legal Defense Fund. Newsweek reported that Catholic bishops have also weighed in on the side of the challenge.

That mix of libertarian, civil rights, defense bar and religious voices on the same side reflects how the jury size question cuts across typical political lines. Legal commentators across the spectrum have described the case as one to watch in a term that also includes disputes over the Second Amendment, religious liberty, parental rights, election law and climate change litigation.

Florida, through the attorney general's office, is defending its law. The state is expected to argue that Williams remains good law and that the court should not disrupt a settled practice that Florida and its courts have relied on for decades.

What a ruling could change

If the court sides with Kian and requires 12-person juries for serious felonies, Florida would have to change how it tries a large share of criminal cases. Courthouses would need to summon more prospective jurors, jury selection would likely take longer, and counties could face higher costs for juror pay and court staff.

The Legislature would also likely need to amend state law to conform to the ruling, a task that could arrive during the 2027 regular session, which begins March 2.

A key open question would be whether any new rule applies to past convictions. In Ramos, the court later held in a separate case that the unanimity rule did not apply retroactively to convictions that were already final on direct appeal. A similar approach in a jury size ruling would limit its effect to pending cases and future trials, but defendants whose cases are still on appeal could seek new trials.

If the court rules for Florida, the status quo would continue and the six-person jury would receive a fresh endorsement from the justices, likely ending the recurring challenges that have reached the court in recent years.

Other stakes for Florida in the new term

Kian is the most direct Florida case on the docket, but the new term will matter to Floridians in other ways. Election law cases could affect how states draw districts and run elections, and cases involving federal agencies could shape how regulators handle issues ranging from environmental permits to financial rules.

The court's emergency docket has also become a major venue for disputes involving the Trump administration, including immigration enforcement cases with direct effects in Florida. Several circuit courts have split over questions such as bond hearings for immigrants in detention, and those issues are widely expected to reach the justices.

The court's fall argument calendars include roughly 20 cases, according to court trackers, and the justices will add more cases through the fall as they review new petitions, a process that began with their traditional late-September conference.

Why the case matters to Floridians

For most Floridians, the jury box is the most direct contact they will ever have with the courts. Every year, residents across the state receive jury summonses, and many serve on six-person panels hearing felony cases. A shift to 12-person juries would mean more residents called to serve and potentially longer trials.

For defendants and their families, the stakes are more personal. Advocates for larger juries argue that a 12-person panel offers more protection against wrongful convictions, while prosecutors and some court administrators have argued that the difference in outcomes is overstated and the costs are real.

For crime victims, a change could mean retrials or delays in some pending cases, depending on how the court handles cases already in the pipeline.

What's next

The Supreme Court's new term begins Monday, Oct. 5, with the first argument session. Kian v. Florida is expected to be argued later, with the December session the target under the proposed schedule, and the court's decision would likely come by the end of June 2027.

In the meantime, Florida courts will continue using six-person juries in noncapital felony cases, as current law allows. Defense attorneys in some pending cases may seek to preserve the jury size issue for appeal in anticipation of the ruling.

The Florida Press will follow the case through argument and decision, along with other cases on the new docket that affect Florida.