Supreme Court’s New Term: Corporate Accountability, Social Justice, and Civil Rights on the Docket
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The Supreme Court’s October term opens with crucial cases on climate justice, religious privilege, gun violence, and immigrant rights—many rooted in regressive Trump-era policies.
The Supreme Court will open its new term on Oct. 5 with arguments in a pivotal Colorado case where Boulder County seeks to hold powerful energy corporations accountable for the catastrophic impacts of climate change. The dispute centers on whether federal law will shield fossil fuel giants like Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil from facing justice in state court for their decades of deceptive marketing and environmental destruction. The justices will also consider whether they have jurisdiction to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that allowed the suit to proceed, a decision that could set a precedent for holding polluters responsible.
"That climate change is a global problem does not disempower states from redressing its local harms either," Boulder County officials wrote, emphasizing the urgent need for local action in the face of federal inaction.
Justice Samuel Alito will recuse from the case.
On Nov. 3, the Court will hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a case in which a religious preschool seeks to undermine Colorado’s universal pre-school program by demanding the right to discriminate against families based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The school claims that the program’s nondiscrimination requirement violates their religious freedom, but lower courts have rightly upheld the state’s rule as neutral and generally applicable, protecting vulnerable children and families from exclusion.
Two gun-violence cases are slated for Dec. 2. Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins involve state bans on deadly AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles in Illinois and Connecticut. Both lower courts applied the Supreme Court’s 2022 historical-tradition test for firearm regulations and upheld the bans, a small but vital step toward curbing the epidemic of gun violence fueled by right-wing lobbying.
The Court will also consider a Washington state parental-rights case, International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, on Dec. 7. This suit threatens the rights of transgender youth by questioning whether parents can challenge state laws that protect runaway teens seeking gender-affirming care from being outed to unsupportive families.
Arizona’s voter-registration rule, Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, is set for Dec. 8. The case examines whether a state-mandated proof-of-citizenship requirement and aggressive voter-roll purges violate the National Voter Registration Act and a prior consent decree, potentially disenfranchising thousands of voters, especially in communities of color.
Immigration matters will dominate several other arguments. On Dec. 9, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. will address the legality of cruel “third-country” removals under a 2025 policy, while Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha concerns the constitutionality of mandatory detention without bond hearings for non-citizens, a practice that has torn families apart and undermined basic human rights.
The Court may also take up additional Trump-era issues, including the legality of a discriminatory transgender military ban, challenges to unqualified acting U.S. attorney appointments, and a defamation judgment involving President Donald Trump, whose legacy of bigotry and corruption continues to haunt the nation.