The Supreme Court’s new term opens Monday with a climate change lawsuit that could determine whether cities and states can make oil companies pay for local damage tied to a warming planet. It is the first of several closely watched disputes the justices will hear before the end of the year.
The court has agreed to hear 30 cases so far, according to PBS News, and it typically adds more as the term goes on. Beyond climate, the docket includes bans on AR-15-style rifles, two cases tied to President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship voting rules and a Catholic preschool’s fight to join a state-funded program in Colorado.
Decisions in argued cases usually come by the end of June or early July, which means rulings in the biggest disputes are likely to arrive in summer 2027.
The cases to watch
Climate lawsuits. In Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, the justices are considering whether federal law stops Boulder, Colorado, from pressing a state-court lawsuit that accuses Suncor and Exxon Mobil of deceptively marketing fossil fuels. Boulder’s city and county governments sued in 2018 and are seeking money damages. CBS News reported that the outcome could ripple through dozens of similar suits filed by states and local governments. The companies argue that a global problem cannot be traced to individual emitters or sorted out by local courts. Justice Samuel Alito stepped aside from the case on Sept. 28 without giving a reason. With eight justices taking part, a 4-4 tie would leave in place the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that let the suit proceed, USA Today noted.
AR-15 bans. On Dec. 2, the court will hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, which challenge an Illinois county ordinance and a Connecticut law prohibiting AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles. Similar bans exist in more than 10 states as well as in Washington, D.C., according to CBS News, and lower courts upheld both measures. The cases will show how the court applies its 2022 decision that requires gun restrictions to fit the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
Voting rules. In Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, set for Dec. 8, the court will review Arizona’s requirement that people registering with a state form prove their citizenship, along with the state’s process for removing names from voter rolls. Lower courts ruled against key parts of the rules. The case arrives as Trump pushes for a nationwide rule requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration.
Immigration. Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., set for Dec. 9, concerns the administration’s practice of deporting migrants to so-called third countries, nations other than their own. A federal judge in Boston ruled in February that sending migrants to such countries without notice was unlawful, and an appeals court largely agreed, but the justices have let the removals continue while they decide the case. A second case, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, which the court added last week, tests the administration’s policy of holding immigrants who entered the country illegally without bond hearings while their deportation cases proceed. Nine federal appeals courts have ruled against that policy and two have allowed it, CBS News reported. Arguments are expected early next year.
Religion and schools. On Nov. 3, the justices will hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy. The parish, in Littleton, Colorado, wants to take part in the state’s universal preschool program, but its admissions policy excludes LGBTQ students and the children of gay or transgender parents. Colorado requires participating schools to enroll children regardless of religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, and the parish argues that rule violates its right to practice its faith. Lower courts sided with the state. NPR reported that a ruling for the parish could open the door to taxpayer funding for religious schools that set such limits.
Parental rights. International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, set for Dec. 7, asks whether parents have legal standing to challenge Washington state laws under which youth shelters notify a state agency, rather than parents, when a runaway teenager seeking gender-related medical care arrives. Lower courts dismissed the parents’ suit, finding they lacked standing.
Beyond the argument calendar
Much of the court’s most consequential work now happens on its emergency docket, where the justices issue quick orders, often with little explanation, while lawsuits move through lower courts. Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck told NPR that the court now issues roughly double the number of full-court emergency rulings as it does decisions in argued cases. “That is a very new phenomenon,” he said.
The justices could also agree to hear more cases involving the administration. CBS News listed several pending requests, including the Pentagon’s ban on transgender military service, disputes over how Trump picked acting U.S. attorneys for offices in Nevada and New York, and Trump’s appeal of an $83.3 million defamation judgment won by writer E. Jean Carroll. Laws in Texas and Louisiana requiring the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms could also reach the court.
What to watch
The climate argument offers the first read on how the justices view the wave of lawsuits against energy producers. The preschool case follows on Nov. 3, the same day as the midterm elections, and December brings arguments on rifle bans, Arizona’s voting rules and third-country deportations. Watch for the court to keep adding cases through the winter, including possible new appeals from the Trump administration.
