Supreme Court Poised for Another Blockbuster Term

The Supreme Court kicks off its 2026–27 term today, October 5, facing another docket jam-packed with controversy and familiar issues. After spending much of its summer break handling cases on the emergency docket, it will now return to hearing full oral arguments and writing detailed opinions. Several cases are likely to have major impacts on the law and the public, including disputes over religious liberty, the Second Amendment, parental rights, and election regulation. Here are some of the top cases to watch.

The Supreme Court and Big Oil

The Supreme Court begins its term today with arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, one of the biggest cases on its current docket. The question is whether federal law prevents local and state governments from using state tort law to seek financial compensation from energy companies for alleged climate change harms.

The city and county of Boulder, CO, filed a lawsuit against Suncor and ExxonMobil for financial damages, claiming both companies knowingly contributed to climate change by selling and promoting fossil fuels nationwide, causing harm to Boulder’s property and residents. The defendants argue that because greenhouse gas emissions cross state and international borders, federal laws like the Clean Air Act block state-law claims.

Free with the Daily Briefing

85Essays

Unravel the Constitution

Hamilton, Madison & Jay’s complete case for America, free and searchable in the Publius Reader.

Join Free & Read

Free with the Daily Briefing. Unsubscribe anytime.

A second question in this case asks “whether the Supreme Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case.” In other words, the Court must address whether it even has jurisdiction. Though the justices will hear arguments today, not all nine will participate. Justice Samuel Alito faced calls to recuse himself because he owns stock in other oil companies fighting similar lawsuits. On September 28, the Court’s clerk sent the parties a letter saying that “Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case.” The letter did not elaborate on why he made the decision.

Gun Rights

Another major case is Viramontes v. Cook County, in which the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee “the right to possess” AR-15s and “similar semiautomatic rifles.” Viramontes involves a Cook County, Illinois, ban; it has been consolidated with Grant v. Higgins, a Second Circuit case challenging Connecticut's ban.

The constitutional test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) will likely serve as the core legal framework in debating Viramontes. Under the Bruen standard, Connecticut and Cook County must prove that banning the rifles aligns with the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” To make that case, “they will need to cite historical analogs that are ‘relevantly similar’ in motivation and scope,” explained Reason. The justices will hear arguments on December 2.

Religious Liberty

In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether states can deny public funding to religious schools that refuse to enroll children of same-sex couples. A universal preschool program in Colorado pays for families to send their kids to a preschool of their choice, public or private, but to qualify, preschools must sign a nondiscrimination agreement that requires them to accept students regardless of their “race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, income, or disability.” The state has denied funds to two Catholic parishes, including St. Mary, for not allowing children of same-sex couples to enroll. St. Mary claims the state is violating its First Amendment right to religious freedom.

From Liberty Nation News, Trivia, Facts, Check Us Out Stay informed. Today’s news, the Constitution and American history, written for young readers. Visit GenerationLiberty.com

The questions presented center on two previous Supreme Court cases. First is Employment Division v. Smith (1990), in which the justices ruled that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not excuse people from following generally applicable laws just because the laws go against their religious practices. Second is Carson v. Makin (2022), in which the Court struck down Maine’s exclusion of religious schools from its tuition assistance program, saying it violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The Court will need to figure out how to apply Smith and “whether Carson v. Makin displaces the rule of Employment Division v. Smith only when the government explicitly excludes religious people and institutions.”

Arguments are set for November 3.

Parental Rights

Do parents have standing to challenge a law that displaces their decision-making role concerning their children’s gender transitions? In International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson, the petitioners challenge Washington state laws allowing licensed shelters to house runaway minors for up to 90 days without parental consent or immediate notification if the child seeks “gender-affirming treatment.” When Washington shelters receive such a child, they must notify the state’s Department of Children, Youth, and Families – not the parents. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) is required to make a “good faith attempt” to contact parents, which, “under implementing policy, means asking the child whether to provide parental contact information,” explained Oyez, a multimedia archive devoted to Supreme Court cases. Then the agency “must offer to refer the minor for ‘appropriate behavioral health services’ without any required parental involvement. The law sets no timeline for reunification in the gender-affirming-care scenario, and parents receive no information about the child’s location or condition.”

In September, the Liberty Justice Center filed an amicus brief in the case, claiming that “when the state strips parents of notice or the authority to make critical life decisions for their children, the result is an immediate constitutional harm.”

The justices will hear arguments on December 7.

Election Law

Another big one to watch is Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, which asks whether the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) blocks Arizona from enforcing proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration. The justices will also have to determine whether the NVRA prohibits the state from canceling noncitizen registrations within 90 days of a federal election. Mi Familia Vota is a consolidation of several cases, brought by voting rights groups and the Biden administration’s Justice Department, challenging two Arizona laws. One imposes a proof-of-citizenship requirement; the other requires county officials to cancel a person’s voter registration if they find the registrant is not a citizen or is unqualified to vote.

A federal district court permanently blocked key provisions of both laws in May 2024. That August, in an emergency-docket ruling, the Supreme Court allowed Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement to take effect for new registrants using state forms. In February 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed most of the district court’s ruling while sending one question – whether the legislature acted with discriminatory intent – back to the trial court. The RNC and Arizona’s Republican legislative leaders asked the Supreme Court to hear the case on its merits. In June 2026, the justices agreed to hear the case; arguments will be held on December 8.

A Big Term Ahead

Another case to watch this term is Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., which addresses the procedures the government must follow before deporting immigrants to countries where they have no ties. Also, in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, the justices will hear arguments on whether immigrants are required to be detained without bond hearings. So far, the Court has agreed to hear roughly 30 cases this term, but it could add more in the months ahead. The justices won’t finish their work until late June or early July. The full impact of this term, though, won't be clear until well after the last decision is released.

Dig Deeper: Enter the Liberty Vault

Liberty Vault: The Constitution of the United States

Liberty Vault: The Most Significant Supreme Court Cases