Supreme Court begins term with focus on Trump-era cases and major policy disputes
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 Court starts its new term without a docket dominated by Trump-related blockbusters, but several high-profile cases involving the former president’s policies and other key issues are slated for review.
The Supreme Court will commence its nine-month term on Monday, entering the session without the flood of Trump-driven separation-of-powers cases that characterized the previous year. Nonetheless, the justices are expected to address several disputes tied to the former president, including a defamation suit brought by columnist E. Jean Carroll, challenges to the administration’s cancellation of federal research grants, and a request for records on agency cuts.
Among the term’s docket are a Second Amendment challenge to bans on AR-15 rifles, a climate-change lawsuit by the city of Boulder against major oil firms, and a case involving religious preschools that refuse enrollment of children of same-sex couples despite receiving state funding. So far, the Court has granted 28 cases, and legal analysts anticipate that roughly 35 additional grants will represent the term’s most consequential matters.
Immigration issues also feature prominently. The Court announced it will hear arguments on the administration’s mandatory detention policy and its practice of deporting migrants to third countries, cases that could shape the president’s broader immigration agenda.
President Trump has recently criticized the three justices he appointed, saying he “gave them a position of a lifetime” and lamenting their votes against him. Justice Samuel Alito noted that harsh presidential criticism of the Court has become “bipartisan,” adding that Trump “has his own way of saying things.”
Legal scholars note that post-midterm election litigation could affect the Court’s workload, though the likelihood of a surge in close-case disputes appears low. Meanwhile, the Court’s handling of the Exxon-Mobil and Suncor challenge to state climate lawsuits may result in a 4-4 split after Alito recused himself due to stock holdings, potentially leaving a lower-court ruling in place.
Experts predict the AR-15 ban cases will likely be decided in favor of gun-rights groups, citing precedent that weapons “in common use” are protected. In the religious-school case, attorneys argue the Court is guided by a commitment to pluralism and equal treatment of faith-based institutions.
The term’s outcomes could have lasting implications for immigration policy, gun rights, climate accountability, and the balance between religious liberty and anti-discrimination laws.