The Supreme Court is back in session
Image: Fred Schilling
The 2026-2027 term of the Supreme Court officially begins today. And while Justices may be starting a new term, they're not exactly coming back from a quiet summer. A series of emergency appeals has kept the Court busy through its traditional recess, requiring Justices to issue temporary rulings on cases while they continue through lower courts.
What’s next on the docket?
Much like last term, there’s no shortage of major cases scheduled to be heard in the coming months:
- Climate change: The Court opens its term today with Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, centering on whether federal law prevents Boulder, CO, from suing Suncor and Exxon Mobil under state law over the sale and alleged deceptive marketing of fossil fuels.
- Gun rights: The justices will consider two cases over whether the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to own AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. The cases challenge state-level bans in Illinois and Connecticut, while 10+ other states and Washington, D.C., have similar restrictions.
- Religious liberty: Catholic preschools in Colorado argue the state violated their 1st Amendment rights by denying them access to a universal preschool program over school policies that ban children from same-sex couples. The program provides public funding to private and religious preschools, but requires participating schools to agree to accept students regardless of their family’s religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
- Third-country deportations: The justices will consider whether the Trump admin’s policy of deporting some immigrants to countries other than their own is legal, and whether immigrants must be given sufficient notice and a chance to challenge their removal before being deported to a third country.
- Immigration detention: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha centers on a Trump admin policy requiring immigrants who entered the US unlawfully to remain detained during removal proceedings without access to a bond hearing, even if they’ve lived in the country for years. The justices will decide whether federal immigration law requires that mandatory detention or allows immigrants to seek release on bond.
Big picture: Public approval of SCOTUS currently sits near a record low. Some 34% of Americans approve of the court’s performance while 61% disapprove, according to Gallup polling published last month. That’s essentially unchanged from a record-low 33% in July, and down from 42% approval as of September 2025. The Court currently has a favorable rating among 65% of Republicans, 31% of Independents, and 12% of Democrats.
📊 Flash poll: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job?
See a 360° view of what pundits are saying →
Sprinkles from the Left
- Some commentators argue that fossil fuel companies should not receive legal immunity from lawsuits seeking to hold them responsible for climate-related damages, since doing so would leave taxpayers and homeowners bearing more of the growing costs of extreme weather. They argue that allowing these cases to proceed gives communities a way to hold companies accountable for allegedly misleading the public about climate risks while continuing to profit from fossil fuels.
- Others contend that individual states should not be able to use their own laws to hold energy companies liable for climate damages caused by emissions that cross state and national borders. They argue that allowing dozens of state courts to impose different standards could create a patchwork of conflicting rules that effectively shapes national energy policy, a responsibility better handled at the federal level.
- “Gun Manufacturers Won the Ultimate Legal Shield. Big Oil Wants That, Too.” –Dave Jones, NY Times
- “Supreme Court ruling in Colorado case would set key precedent: Whose law governs the sky” –Gale Norton, Denver Post
- “On Oct. 5, the Supreme Court will decide our children’s future” –Richard W. Emory Jr., Sun Sentinel
Sprinkles from the Right
- Some commentators argue that Boulder’s climate lawsuit threatens the balance of power between states by allowing one locality to penalize energy production taking place elsewhere in the country. They argue that letting states impose liability on economic activity beyond their borders could undermine other states’ ability to set their own policies and give local governments power over decisions reserved for the federal government.
- Others contend that allowing local governments to pursue climate lawsuits over emissions produced across the country could let courts impose policies that elected lawmakers have chosen not to enact. They argue that decisions with nationwide consequences should remain with Congress and federal regulators, where voters can hold policymakers accountable, rather than being determined by individual states and local juries.
- “A Big Moment for Federalism at the Supreme Court” –WSJ Editorial Board
- “The Supreme Court takes up climate change — and much more” –WaPo Editorial Board
- “How one climate lawsuit could jack up prices for everyone” –Phil Goldberg, Washington Examiner
Share this!
Recent Discussion stories
Discussion
| October 2, 2026Political spending picks up ahead of midterms
With Election Day just 32 days out, the midterms are now entering their final, increasingly expensive stretch.
Discussion
| September 30, 2026Car dealerships lack new models amid EV pullback
The auto industry has spent decades convincing Americans they need the latest model in the driveway.
Discussion
| September 28, 2026America turns up the economic pressure on Iran
President Trump on Saturday publicly rejected Iran’s latest proposal for a seven-day ceasefire, as the two sides continue negotiating a potential end to the war.
You've made it this far...
Let's make our relationship official, no 💍 or elaborate proposal required. Learn and stay entertained, for free.👇
All of our news is 100% free and you can unsubscribe anytime; the quiz takes ~10 seconds to complete