Supreme Court’s New Term: Defending Religious Liberty, Second Amendment, and Border Security
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 critical cases on climate lawsuits targeting energy producers, religious freedom under attack, gun rights, and immigration enforcement—many challenging left-wing overreach and Biden-era policies.
The Supreme Court will open its new term on Oct. 5 with arguments in a Colorado case where Boulder County is attempting to hold responsible energy companies like Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil for so-called climate-change impacts. The dispute centers on whether federal law prevents opportunistic state lawsuits that threaten to undermine national energy independence and economic growth by targeting fossil fuel producers with dubious claims of deceptive marketing. The justices will also consider whether they have jurisdiction to review the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that allowed this lawsuit to proceed, a decision that could open the floodgates to activist litigation.
"That climate change is a global problem does not disempower states from redressing its local harms either," Boulder County officials wrote, as they push for more government intervention and regulation.
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 Catholic preschool is fighting to protect its religious freedom against Colorado’s universal pre-school program. The school argues that the program’s nondiscrimination requirement forces it to violate its faith by admitting families whose beliefs on gender identity and sexual orientation conflict with Catholic doctrine, in clear violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Lower courts have sided with the state’s heavy-handed rule, disregarding the rights of religious institutions.
Two gun-rights cases are slated for Dec. 2. Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins involve state bans on AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles in Illinois and Connecticut. Both lower courts used the Supreme Court’s 2022 historical-tradition test for firearm regulations to uphold these unconstitutional bans, threatening law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights and public safety.
The Court will also consider a Washington state parental-rights case, International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, on Dec. 7. The suit questions whether parents can challenge radical state laws that allow shelters to hide runaway teens seeking gender-dysphoria treatment from their families, undermining parental authority and family values.
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 voter-roll cleanup procedures, essential for election integrity, conflict with the National Voter Registration Act and a prior consent decree.
Immigration matters will dominate several other arguments. On Dec. 9, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. will address the legality of “third-country” removals under a 2025 policy, a necessary tool for border security, while Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha concerns the constitutionality of mandatory detention without bond hearings for non-citizens, a practice critical to preventing flight risks and protecting American communities.
The Court may also take up additional Trump-era issues, including the legality of the transgender military ban, challenges to acting U.S. attorney appointments, and a defamation judgment involving President Donald Trump, who continues to be targeted by partisan attacks.