The US Supreme Court new term opens on Monday, October 5, 2026, with a docket packed with controversy. The justices will weigh climate-change lawsuits against major energy companies, taxpayer funding for religious schools that exclude LGBTQ students, bans on AR-15-style rifles, and President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policies — all against the backdrop of a fast-growing “shadow docket” that critics say is reshaping American law with little explanation.
FAKTA
- The October 2026 term opens on Monday, October 5 — the first Monday in October — and runs to about the end of June.
- Opening case: Suncor Energy v. Commissioners of Boulder County — can cities and counties sue energy firms over alleged climate deception?
- Religion: St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy — Colorado preschool funding versus a parish’s refusal to admit LGBTQ students.
- Guns (arguments in December): Viramontes v. Cook County — do bans on AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles violate the Second Amendment?
- Immigration (arguments in December): third-country deportations, and a challenge to mandatory detention without bond hearings.
- Voting: RNC v. Mi Familia Vota — proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration.
- The shadow docket now produces twice as many full-court rulings as the merits docket, according to Georgetown professor Stephen Vladeck.
- Waiting in the wings: the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms, the $40-billion Kalshi prediction market, and disputes over Harvard research grants.
Climate Change Opens the Term
The very first case of the term, to be argued on Monday, tests whether state and local governments can sue energy companies for allegedly deceiving the public about the damaging effects of fossil fuels. In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County, which the court added to its docket in February 2026, the City of Boulder and Boulder County, Colorado, sued Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil over the alleged local costs of greenhouse-gas emissions.
“The theory is that the energy company defendants deceived the public for many years,” says Deepak Gupta, who teaches at Harvard Law School, noting that what the companies told the public for years was “the opposite of what the company’s own scientists knew.” The companies counter that federal precedent prevents local governments from suing over damage caused by emissions from outside their region. Most court observers see the case as an uphill battle for environmentalists.
Religion: Taxpayers, Faith Schools and LGBTQ Students
Perhaps the biggest case of the term so far, in terms of ripple effects, involves religion — an area where the court’s conservative supermajority has dramatically changed legal doctrine since President Trump appointed three new justices. In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the justices will decide whether Colorado must fund a Catholic parish preschool that refuses to admit LGBTQ students or children of gay and transgender parents.
Colorado’s universal preschool law funds preschools — public, private and religious alike — that agree to give children an “equal opportunity to enroll” regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton wants the state funding guaranteed under the law, but says admitting LGBTQ families would violate the church’s right to the free exercise of religion. The state counters that funding the parish school would violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.
The stakes are heightened by last term’s history: the justices deadlocked 4-4 in a separate case over taxpayer funding for an overtly religious charter school in Oklahoma after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself over a conflict, leaving the lower-court ruling against funding in place. This time Barrett is participating — and given the court’s current views, taxpayers could end up having to fund religious schools in Colorado and elsewhere, something the court has never before required.
The justices’ bench inside the U.S. Supreme Court chamber in Washington. The court’s October 2026 term opens on Monday, October 5. (Image: Watan News)
Guns: The AR-15 Test
In December, the court will hear Viramontes v. Cook County, testing whether state and local governments violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms when they ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15. Former Solicitor General Don Verrilli Jr. frames the dilemma two ways: on the one hand, the AR-15 “can deliver upwards of 100 bullets per minute” without enhancements, and 500 per minute with them; on the other, millions of Americans own AR-15s, “and it would be quite disruptive to suggest all these Americans … would be dispossessed of their weapons.”
Lawyer Erin Murphy, who has litigated extensively for gun owners, says the “single most important question is who gets to decide what guns you have,” arguing it makes no sense to say, “You’ve got this right against the government, but the government decides which arms you can get.”
Immigration: Deportations and Detention
The Trump administration has repeatedly taken positions in immigration cases that no other administration has adopted. Most recently, the court announced it will hear arguments in December over whether the Department of Homeland Security may deport migrants to so-called “third countries” when their countries of origin refuse to accept them. Since Trump began his second term, his administration has deported thousands of people to countries where they have no connections, may not speak the language, and have often been jailed and allegedly subjected to torture. The court has twice blocked lower-court decisions against the policy; more than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries, according to human rights groups cited by Reuters.
In a second immigration case, the issue is the administration’s policy of detaining undocumented immigrants without a bond hearing, regardless of how long they have lived in the United States — a break with the government’s longstanding interpretation of federal law.
The Shadow Docket and the US Supreme Court New Term
Looming over everything is the court’s emergency — or “shadow” — docket. As Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck observes, the number of emergency appeals has ballooned during the Trump administration while fully briefed and argued cases have dropped sharply: “So now we have twice as many full court rulings on emergency applications as we have on the merits docket. That is a very new phenomenon.”
Emergency-docket decisions arrive quickly, with little briefing, no oral arguments and ultimately little or no explanation — in contrast to merits decisions worked on for months. Lower-court judges, liberal and conservative alike, complain the summary rulings give them inadequate guidance, and the Trump administration often leapfrogs over lower appellate courts it views as hostile, according to NPR’s preview of the term. Critics such as Georgetown professor Michele Goodwin say the administration has effectively been given a “speed pass” to the Supreme Court.
Waiting in the Wings
Many more cases are waiting that the justices may take up. Among them is a challenge to a nearly half-century-old precedent barring public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms: Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Alabama have passed laws conflicting with the court’s 1980 ruling, and a split among lower courts all but guarantees the justices will revisit the question.
Another potential case tests whether states can regulate Kalshi, the $40-billion prediction market where users bet on everything from sports outcomes to Supreme Court decisions. And the administration has slow-walked cases it quickly lost in the lower courts — including its attempt to deny medical research grants to Harvard University and disputes over security clearances for law firms — with Stanford professor Pam Karlan noting: “They don’t want to take up cases that they’re going to lose, but on the other hand, they have a boss who wants everything taken up there.”
A Lady Justice statue outside a courthouse. The Supreme Court’s docket this term spans climate litigation, religious liberty, gun rights and immigration. (Image: Watan News)
Elections on the Horizon
More immediately, the justices may be drawn into election disputes whether they like it or not. The Trump administration has sought to influence elections in numerous ways, Democrats have a battalion of lawyers lined up for on-the-ground problems, and any serious voting disputes would likely land at the Supreme Court’s door — on the emergency docket.
Conclusion
The US Supreme Court new term is poised to be one of the most consequential in recent memory, with blockbuster rulings expected on climate accountability, the boundary between church and state, the scope of the Second Amendment and the limits of presidential power over immigration. How the justices handle the cases — and how much of the term’s real business happens on the shadow docket rather than in open court — will shape American law for years. As Professor Vladeck puts it: “The real story of the upcoming term hasn’t been written yet, because what we’re going to look back on as the biggest cases of the term … are not on the docket yet.” Read this story on Watan News and see more world news.
