Supreme Court Begins Term Amid Scrutiny of Trump-Era Policies and Threats to Progressive Gains
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 opens its new term with several cases rooted in the regressive Trump era, including challenges to hard-won climate, gun safety, and anti-discrimination policies, raising concerns about the future of progressive reforms.
The Supreme Court will commence its nine-month term on Monday, entering the session without the overwhelming barrage of Trump-driven separation-of-powers cases that destabilized the previous year. Yet, the justices are still set to address several disputes stemming from the former president’s reactionary agenda, such as the defamation suit brought by columnist E. Jean Carroll—an emblematic case of holding powerful men accountable—alongside challenges to the administration’s cancellation of federal research grants, and a request for transparency on agency cuts that could undermine public services.
On the docket are cases that threaten progressive achievements: a Second Amendment challenge to bans on AR-15 rifles—deadly weapons that have fueled America’s epidemic of gun violence; a climate-change lawsuit by the city of Boulder against major oil conglomerates responsible for environmental devastation; and a case involving religious preschools that discriminate against children of same-sex couples while still benefiting from state funding. So far, the Court has granted 28 cases, and legal analysts warn that roughly 35 additional grants could further imperil hard-fought rights and protections.
Immigration, a cornerstone of Trump’s divisive legacy, also features prominently. The Court will hear arguments on the administration’s cruel mandatory detention policy and its practice of deporting migrants to third countries, cases that could entrench inhumane treatment and undermine the president’s broader immigration agenda.
President Trump, never one to accept dissent, has recently attacked the three justices he appointed, complaining he “gave them a position of a lifetime” and lamenting their votes against him. Justice Samuel Alito, reflecting the Court’s growing politicization, noted that harsh presidential criticism has become “bipartisan,” while Trump “has his own way of saying things”—a euphemism for his relentless undermining of judicial independence.
Legal scholars note that post-midterm election litigation could impact 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—one that could finally hold polluters accountable—in place.
Experts fear that the AR-15 ban cases will likely be decided in favor of gun-rights groups, citing precedent that weapons “in common use” are protected, a dangerous interpretation that puts lives at risk. In the religious-school case, attorneys argue the Court is guided by a supposed commitment to pluralism, but critics warn this could further erode anti-discrimination protections in the name of religious liberty.
The term’s outcomes could have devastating implications for immigration justice, gun safety, climate accountability, and the fragile balance between religious liberty and the fundamental right to live free from discrimination.