Washington — The Supreme Court’s new term is set to begin soon, bringing major cases involving climate change, President Trump’s immigration policies and the Second Amendment before the justices in the months ahead.
Several other legal challenges tied to Mr. Trump’s second-term agenda are also waiting in the wings. The justices are expected to consider those disputes during upcoming private conferences and, if they agree to hear them, issue rulings by the summer of 2027.
The Supreme Court opens its term Monday with arguments over a lawsuit filed by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado. The case seeks to hold energy companies responsible for the consequences of global climate change.
Here are the major cases the Supreme Court is currently expected to decide during its upcoming term, which begins Oct. 5:
Climate change: Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County
On the first day of the term, the justices will hear arguments in a dispute between Boulder and energy companies Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil.
At issue is a technical legal question: Does federal law bar Boulder County from pursuing its lawsuit in state court, where it claims the companies violated state law through the sale and allegedly deceptive marketing of fossil fuels?
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The ruling could affect dozens of similar climate lawsuits filed by states and local governments seeking to hold fossil-fuel companies accountable for climate change. A decision favoring the energy companies would end Boulder’s case, which remains in its early stages and seeks financial damages.
Exxon and Suncor lawyers caution that allowing such lawsuits to proceed—and potentially succeed—could effectively create a carbon tax on fossil-fuel producers and “bankrupt” the industry.
In filings submitted to the Supreme Court, the companies described climate change as “one of the most complex public-policy challenges of our time.” They said it stems from greenhouse-gas emissions produced by every state and country, adding that those emissions “cannot be unmixed and traced to their individual sources.”
The case reached the Supreme Court after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder’s lawsuit could continue. The justices will also examine whether they have jurisdiction to review that decision.
The energy companies argue that upholding the Colorado ruling and applying it nationwide would give all 50 states and their municipalities “the green light” to ask local courts to create a patchwork of conflicting climate policies.
Boulder County’s lawyers counter that the Constitution permits states to address harms occurring within their borders. They said Congress—not the courts—should decide whether those issues would be better handled through federal policy.
County officials also contend that the energy companies appealed to the Supreme Court too soon. In their view, the companies should wait until the state court reaches a final ruling before seeking review by the justices.
“That climate change is a global problem does not disempower states from redressing its local harms either,” the county’s lawyers wrote. “This litigation is not an attempt to solve climate change; it merely asks that petitioners bear their fair share of local costs incurred in part because of their tortious conduct.”
Justice Samuel Alito will not participate in the case, according to a letter sent to the parties’ lawyers Monday. The letter gave no reason for his recusal. In his 2025 financial disclosure, Alito reported owning stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66, though he did not report individual holdings in Exxon or Suncor.
Religious liberty: St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy
On Nov. 3, the justices will hear arguments in a case involving a Catholic preschool in Colorado that argues it is unlawfully excluded from the state’s universal preschool program. The dispute is the latest Supreme Court case examining whether religious organizations may participate in publicly funded programs.
Colorado’s program provides state funding so families can choose a preschool for their 4-year-old children. It offers every child in the state up to 15 hours of free preschool each week before kindergarten. Families may select public or private schools, as well as faith-based or in-home providers.
The law establishing the program contains a nondiscrimination requirement. Schools must ensure children have an equal opportunity to enroll regardless of the child’s or parents’ religious affiliation, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, housing status or income.
In 2023, the Archdiocese of Denver—which oversees more than 30 Catholic preschools—asked to be exempted from the program’s nondiscrimination rule. The archdiocese sought permission to admit only families who follow Catholic teachings, including those concerning gender identity and sexual orientation.
The Colorado Department of Early Childhood rejected the request. The archdiocese, two parishes and a family with children enrolled in parish schools then sued, arguing that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause entitled them to an exemption.
The plaintiffs said because the universal preschool program created exemptions to the nondiscrimination requirement, it was not neutral and generally applicable. The Supreme Court said in a 1990 decision called Employment Division v. Smith that laws burdening the free exercise of religion generally do not violate the First Amendment as long as they’re neutral and generally applicable.
A federal district court sided with the state in June 2024, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld that decision, finding that the program’s nondiscrimination rule “exists in harmony with the First Amendment” and doesn’t violate the plaintiffs’ free exercise rights.
Gun rights: Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins
This latest Second Amendment dispute to arise following the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision expanding gun rights involves state laws banning AR-15s and similar semiautomatic weapons.
The two cases, which will be argued Dec. 2, involve a Connecticut law and an ordinance in Cook County, Illinois. Cook County’s prohibition was put in place nearly 20 years ago, while Connecticut tightened its rules for semiautomatic firearms after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
More than 10 states and the District of Columbia prohibit AR-15-style semiautomatic weapons.
In both of the cases from Illinois and Connecticut, lower courts upheld the bans. The appeals courts each applied the new standard for determining the constitutionality of gun restrictions that the Supreme Court laid out in 2022, which requires the government to show that a law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
In its ruling then, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home. The justices have been asked to take up a number of challenges to longstanding federal and state gun laws in the years since.
In 2024, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bars people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. Then, last year, it said that under the Second Amendment, the government cannot prosecute a habitual marijuana user for having a firearm. The high court also struck down a Hawaii law that required concealed-carry permit holders to receive permission before bringing their firearms onto private property that is open to the public.
The Supreme Court had turned away challenges to laws from Maryland and Illinois banning AR-15s and other semiautomatic weapons, leaving those restrictions in place.
Parental rights: International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson
On Dec. 7, the Supreme Court will consider a case that involves laws from Washington state that expanded exceptions for when a youth shelter has to notify parents of a runaway teenager.
Under one of the new exceptions, if a child seeking or receiving medical treatments for gender dysphoria, including mental and physical health services, arrives at a shelter, it does not have to inform the parents that their child is there and instead must notify the Department of Children, Youth and Families.
The new measure also says the department must offer runaway teenagers those medical interventions at shelters if they seek that care without their parents’ consent.
The question before the Supreme Court is whether parents have standing to file lawsuits challenging Washington’s laws. The five sets of parents involved in the case all have children who they said have experienced gender dysphoria, and they allege the laws violate their constitutional right to direct the care and upbringing of their children.
A federal district court dismissed their case in 2024, finding that the parents lacked legal standing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision.
CONTINUE READING: Kemi Badenoch Hints at Inheritance Tax Cut in Tory Conference Speech
Arizona’s voting rules: Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota
Amid President Trump’s push for a federal proof-of-citizenship requirement to register to vote, the Supreme Court will weigh an Arizona rule that requires would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote using a state form. The case also involves the state’s procedures for cleaning up its voter rolls. Federal law says any state program to systematically remove people from their voter registration lists must be completed 90 days before an election.
Arguments are set for Dec. 8.
Arizona’s legislature approved the new voting policies in 2022. But soon after, Democratic groups including the Democratic National Committee filed lawsuits seeking to block their enforcement. The challengers argued that the requirements violated or were preempted by the National Voting Registration Act and a 2018 consent decree between Arizona’s secretary of state and the Maricopa County recorder.
A federal district court said that under the consent decree, local election officials could not reject state voter registration forms that lacked proof of citizenship. The court also said that under the NVRA, Arizona couldn’t systematically cancel voter registrations within 90 days of an election.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision last year.
Arizona’s voting rules have been before the Supreme Court before, though at an earlier stage in the case. In August 2024, the Supreme Court allowed the state to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the general election. But the high court did not let the state enforce rules requiring proof-of-citizenship to vote for president or by mail.
Third-country deportations: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.
The Trump administration implemented a policy in March 2025 that allowed for the swift removal of migrants to countries that they do not come from — so-called third countries — if those nations have provided credible assurances that deportees will not be persecuted or tortured.
The administration has argued that the third-country removals are an “essential tool” to remove certain migrants, including those who have criminal records. But last year, a group of four migrants subject to final orders of removal filed a class-action lawsuit arguing that their due-process rights would be violated if they were denied sufficient notice and an opportunity to challenge their removals before they were deported to a third country.
A federal district judge in Boston ruled that the Department of Homeland Security’s guidance likely violated their due process rights, and he ordered immigration officials to provide migrants with written notice of the third country of removal, as well as a “meaningful opportunity” — at least 10 days — to assert a fear of removal.
The case ended up at the Supreme Court during an earlier stage, and the high court allowed the Trump administration to resume the deportations to third countries while litigation continued.
Then, in February, the judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration’s policy of deporting migrants to third countries without giving them notice is unlawful and said it must be set aside. A federal appeals court largely upheld that decision last month and said immigration authorities must offer detainees “a meaningful opportunity to contest” their deportations to countries that are not their own.
The Justice Department filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court and asked it to block the district court’s decision.
The high court granted that request, allowing DHS to resume third-country removals for now, but also said it would decide the legal merits of the case. Arguments will take place Dec. 9.
Among the questions that the Supreme Court has asked the Justice Department and lawyers for the migrants to answer is whether the administration’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under federal immigration law, the Constitution’s Due Process Clause and protections against torture.
Immigration detentions: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha
At issue in this case is the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants in the country illegally during their removal proceedings without access to bond hearings.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement rolled out the policy last year when it reinterpreted an immigration law from the 1990s and determined detainees facing removal are no longer eligible to be released on bond if they entered the country unlawfully, even if they have been in the U.S. for years.
Since then, as part of the president’s crackdown on immigration, tens of thousands of immigrants have been detained by immigration authorities and held indefinitely. Many have filed petitions in federal court challenging their detentions and seeking release or a hearing. Hundreds of federal judges across the country have granted those requests and rejected the Trump administration’s policy.
Two federal appeals courts have allowed noncitizens to be subject to mandatory detention without bond, but nine others have ruled against the Trump administration.
The case before the Supreme Court involves a Brazilian man, Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who came to the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago. Barbosa da Cunha has never been convicted of a crime, according to court papers. He applied for asylum in 2016 and was granted a valid work permit.
But last year, during a traffic stop in Massachusetts, Barbosa da Cunha was taken into custody by ICE officers, and the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him.
Barbosa da Cunha requested a bond hearing, but an immigration judge denied the request on the grounds that he was subject to mandatory detention without the possibility of bond under a provision of federal immigration law.
He then filed a petition in federal court alleging that his detention without access to a bond hearing was illegal and a violation of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. A federal judge sided with Barbosa da Cunha, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld that decision, rejecting the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy.
In its decision, the 2nd Circuit panel of judges said accepting the administration’s interpretation of immigration law would “send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society, straining our already overcrowded detention infrastructure, incarcerating millions, separating families, and disrupting communities.”
Arguments in the case will likely be held early next year.
More big cases looming
The Supreme Court could also decide to take up several new cases that involve Mr. Trump’s policies and actions taken during his second term.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer has asked the justices to decide the constitutionality of the Department of Defense’s policy prohibiting transgender people from the military. An appeals court ruled that the ban discriminates against transgender individuals. But the Trump administration argues that the military has the power to decide who can serve in the armed forces and cannot be prohibited from exercising that authority.
The solicitor general, who argues on behalf of the U.S. government before the Supreme Court, has also appealed lower court decisions that have blocked Mr. Trump’s appointments of acting U.S. attorneys in New York and Nevada.
The Trump administration has sought to install his allies as second-in-command, a position called first assistant U.S. attorney, of those offices and then elevate them to serve as the acting U.S. attorneys. But lower courts have said that those prosecutors, John Sarcone in Albany and Sigal Chattah in Nevada, were unlawfully appointed since they were not serving as the first assistant when the U.S. attorney position became vacant.
Mr. Trump has used the same mechanism to put his preferred picks atop U.S. attorney offices in New Jersey and Los Angeles, circumventing the Senate confirmation process required for those prosecutor positions. But lower courts have all said the appointments were unlawful.
Sauer has also asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Mr. Trump’s efforts to effectively suspend asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border is lawful.
Mr. Trump, in his personal capacity, has asked the Supreme Court to review an $83.3 million defamation judgment stemming from statements he made about E. Jean Carroll and whether presidential immunity applies to those remarks.
Separate from the cases involving the president, the Supreme Court could also take up challenges to laws from Texas and Louisiana that require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has upheld the Texas law.
The high court has also been asked to take up a legal fight over a plea agreement reached by military prosecutors and two of the men allegedly behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, including accused architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
