Supreme Court Begins New Term As Midterm Election Looms

The Supreme Court returns Monday to a docket that could reshape immigration enforcement, strengthen Second Amendment protections and determine how states balance public programs with religious freedom.

With the November midterms barely a month away, the nine justices will also confront disputes over voter citizenship requirements and could face urgent election-related litigation before Americans finish casting their ballots.

The Court’s 6–3 conservative majority enters the term with several major challenges to President Donald Trump’s policies already awaiting review. Other disputes, including the president’s personal lawsuits, remain petitions the justices have yet to decide whether to hear.

Opening arguments Monday concern an effort by Colorado local governments to hold major energy producers financially responsible for alleged climate-related damage.

Boulder County and other local governments are seeking damages from companies including ExxonMobil and Suncor. The energy companies argue that state lawsuits cannot appropriately regulate emissions generated across the globe and could expose businesses to enormous liability through local courts.

The Trump administration has backed the companies, arguing that the litigation attempts to establish climate policy through state lawsuits.

The outcome could carry financial consequences reaching into the billions of dollars, while clarifying how far local governments may go in using litigation to pursue environmental policy.

Gun owners will be watching another major dispute over state prohibitions on semiautomatic firearms, including the widely owned AR-15 platform.

Roughly a dozen states prohibit firearms they classify as assault weapons. Challengers argue that those restrictions violate the Second Amendment by banning arms owned by millions of Americans.

The case gives the justices another opportunity to define the reach of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms following recent decisions strengthening its protection.

For advocates of gun rights, the central issue is whether states may prohibit an entire category of commonly owned firearms despite those constitutional guarantees.

Election integrity will receive attention in a challenge involving Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirements.

One disputed provision requires people using the state’s voter-registration form to provide documentary proof of citizenship. Another calls for regular voter-roll maintenance involving registrations for which officials cannot confirm citizenship.

Arizona Republicans are defending the requirements. Arguments are expected in December, meaning the eventual ruling could influence future registration and voter-roll policies well beyond the state.

Religious liberty is also on the docket through a dispute over Colorado’s taxpayer-funded universal preschool program.

St. Mary Catholic Parish challenges its exclusion from the program over faith-based admissions policies that conflict with Colorado’s LGBTQ nondiscrimination requirements.

Colorado maintains that religious schools may participate but must comply with the program’s nondiscrimination conditions when receiving public funds.

The case raises consequential questions about religious institutions’ access to public benefits and their ability to retain policies rooted in their faith.

Immigration, meanwhile, could produce some of the term’s most significant decisions.

The justices have agreed to hear a challenge to the Trump administration’s use of expedited deportations to countries other than migrants’ homelands. Federal officials maintain that these removals are essential when returning an individual to the country of origin is not readily possible.

The Court recently allowed the policy to continue while the litigation proceeds, with arguments scheduled for December.

All three liberal justices opposed that interim relief. The majority’s decision allowed enforcement to continue but did not settle the underlying legal questions.

A separate case concerns the administration’s interpretation of mandatory immigration detention.

The government argues that federal law requires detention without bond hearings for certain people who entered illegally, including individuals who have lived in the United States for years.

Most federal appeals courts to consider that interpretation have rejected it. Supreme Court review could resolve the disagreement and establish more consistent rules for detention during removal proceedings.

Trump is also asking the Court to review several personal legal disputes.

One petition seeks to overturn the approximately $83 million judgment in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation litigation. Another seeks to revive conspiracy claims against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee involving the 2016 election.

The president has additionally asked the justices to allow his defamation claims against CNN, arising from the 2020 campaign, to proceed.

Whether those cases become part of the Court’s argument calendar depends on whether the justices agree to take them up.

Election litigation could add further pressure to an already substantial docket. Last-minute disputes over voting rules may reach the Court as the November midterms approach.

Conservative law professor William Baude predicted considerable “election drama” during the term.

Trump has had greater success in emergency proceedings before the conservative majority during his second administration. Still, prominent legal figures have cautioned against treating those outcomes as evidence that the Court simply follows the president.

Justice Elena Kagan has publicly rejected the suggestion that the institution merely rubber-stamps Trump’s decisions.

Former Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli has also disputed that characterization.

“Though, I think it’s certainly right it is not a MAGA court,” Verrilli said.

The justices will also consider requests to hear additional disputes involving abortion pills, prediction markets and displays of the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms.

Across the nine-month term, the Court will face competing claims about federal authority, state power and individual constitutional protections. For conservatives, the docket offers significant opportunities on gun rights, religious liberty and election safeguards, alongside tests of the Trump administration’s ability to enforce immigration law.