Supreme Court Opens New Term Packed with Controversial Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court formally opens its 2026-2027 term on Monday, October 5, with a docket stacked with contentious disputes over climate change, religion, gun rights, immigration, and parental rights — and the prospect of election-law battles arriving at its door amid the run-up to the 2026 midterms. As NPR reported, the term begins against the backdrop of an increasingly active emergency docket and a 6-3 conservative supermajority that has reshaped the law across multiple domains in recent years.

Context: A Court Already in Motion

Although the first Monday in October traditionally marks the start of a new term, the court’s summer quiet has largely disappeared. Under the Trump administration, the justices have taken up an unusually large number of emergency applications — the so-called shadow docket — decided quickly with little briefing, no oral argument, and often little explanation.

According to Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck, the shift is unprecedented. The court now issues twice as many full court rulings on emergency applications as on the merits docket, he told NPR, calling it a very new phenomenon. Lower court judges across the ideological spectrum have complained that the terse rulings give them inadequate guidance, and the administration has frequently leapfrogged appellate courts it views as hostile to reach the justices directly.

Most decisions from the term are expected by late June or early July 2027.

The Climate Case Opens the Term

The opening case, argued on Day One, is Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, which tests whether state and local governments can sue energy companies over the effects of climate change. The SCOTUSblog case page frames the central question as whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions — and whether the court even has jurisdiction to hear the case at this stage.

Boulder sued ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy in state court in 2018, alleging that the companies deceived the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and should bear a share of local climate costs. According to Colorado Public Radio, the city and county argue they are not seeking to regulate greenhouse gases but to address deceptive marketing, which they say falls outside the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority. The energy companies counter that the Clean Air Act and federal law preempt the claims, warning that allowing them could effectively impose a carbon tax and bankrupt the industry.

The stakes reach well beyond Colorado. About two dozen similar climate-accountability lawsuits are pending in state courts nationwide, modeled on earlier public-interest litigation against tobacco, opioid, and tech companies. As UCLA law professor Alejandro Camacho told CPR, a broad ruling against the county ends essentially all of them. Such a ruling could also affect state climate Superfund laws in Vermont and New York and shield companies from other state-level liability claims.

Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from the case. According to CBS News, the clerk’s letter gave no reason for the recusal; Alito’s 2025 financial disclosure reported holdings in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, but not in Exxon or Suncor.

Religion, Guns, and Parental Rights

Perhaps the term’s most consequential case, in terms of ripple effects, involves religion. In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, argued November 3, the justices will consider whether a Catholic preschool in Colorado may be excluded from the state’s universal preschool program because it refuses to admit LGBTQ students and the children of gay or trans parents.

For much of the 20th century, the court emphasized the separation of church and state, with free exercise playing a secondary role. That emphasis has since reversed. It is literally the opposite of what the law was not that long ago, and it is just a complete shift, Michigan State University law professor Frank Ravitch told NPR. The court has never said religious schools are entitled to full taxpayer funding, but with Justice Amy Coney Barrett participating — after recusing from a similar deadlocked case last term — that outcome is now realistic.

On December 2, the court hears Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, testing state and local bans on AR-15-style semi-automatic weapons. More than 10 states and the District of Columbia prohibit such weapons. Former Solicitor General Don Verrilli Jr. told NPR that the AR-15 can deliver upwards of 100 bullets per minute without enhancements and 500 with them — but that millions of Americans own AR-15s, and it would be quite disruptive to suggest all these Americans would be dispossessed of their weapons. Attorney Erin Murphy, who represents gun owners, framed the core issue as who gets to decide what guns you have.

The term also includes International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, argued December 7, a parental-rights dispute over a Washington state law governing whether youth shelters must notify parents of runaways seeking gender-dysphoria care, and Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, argued December 8, over Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship voting rules and voter-roll procedures.

Immigration and the Emergency Docket

Immigration cases loom large. In DHS v. D.V.D., argued December 9, the court will weigh whether the Department of Homeland Security may deport migrants to so-called third countries when their nations of origin refuse to accept them. The administration implemented the policy in March 2025; a federal judge in Boston found it likely violated due-process rights, and the Supreme Court allowed removals to resume while the case proceeds. A separate case, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, centers on the administration’s mandatory-detention policy, which denies bond hearings to detainees who entered unlawfully. Two appeals courts have upheld the policy; nine others have rejected it.

With the midterms approaching, the court is also likely to be drawn into election disputes on its emergency docket, from last-minute polling-place changes to federal agents near polling sites. Last term, the court blocked a Trump-backed Missouri congressional map and rejected the administration’s mail-voting restrictions. As Stanford law professor Pam Karlan told NPR, the justices do not want to take up cases that they are going to lose, but on the other hand, they have a boss who wants everything taken up there.

What’s Next

Several cases await the justices, including challenges to Ten Commandments displays in public schools, efforts to regulate the prediction-market company Kalshi, and disputes over Trump administration actions involving Harvard research grants, security clearances, and law firms. Vladeck cautioned that the term’s definitive cases may not yet be on the docket. The real story of the upcoming term has not been written yet, he told NPR, because what we are going to look back on as the biggest cases of the term are not on the docket yet.