The Supreme Court’s 2026 term doesn’t start until the gavel bangs in Washington, D.C., on Monday morning. But there’s already been a lot of buzz about what the term might look like, particularly after the 2025 term had several notable cases.
Read more Vulnerable lawmakers juggle governing with midterm messaging
Zach Shemtob, the executive editor at SCOTUSblog, a leading outlet covering the high court, said he thinks the upcoming term will be quieter than the last but noted there’s still time for the justices to add more high-profile cases to their docket.
“While this coming term has some very significant cases so far, overall, it does not have the same firepower as last term or the last few terms,” he said.
The court has released its schedule for oral arguments through the end of the year, as well as a glimpse at the first cases to be heard in early 2027, providing a look into how the term will shape up.
This comes just months after the justices released decisions on several blockbuster cases at the end of their last term, delivering President Donald Trump several big blows to agenda items like tariffs and birthright citizenship. The president has recently claimed he regrets nominating three justices, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who have sided against Trump in key cases.
While the 2025 term was dubbed the Trump term, with justices also handing the president some key wins, 2026 has fewer cases involving the administration — but that doesn’t mean they won’t be added through the increasingly common emergency, or shadow, docket.
“Last term we had birthright, we had tariffs, we had Slaughter,” Shemtob added. “We don’t so far have anything quite on that level. But, again, the term is still young. We don’t know what actions the administration is going to take, not only on the emergency docket but what might end up on the merits.”
Here’s what you need to know:
The immigration term?
Shemtob said so far, the upcoming term is looking to be defined by immigration cases. In some ways it will reflect a similar Trump-related theme, since many of the immigration cases before the justices pertain to the Trump administration’s efforts.
The justices this week agreed to hear two major challenges to Trump’s immigration policies. Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. is a case challenging the administration’s move to deport noncitizens to countries other than their home countries.
They also agreed to take up Barbosa da Cunha v. Rhoney, which centers on the administration’s policy of detaining noncitizens who have been apprehended within the United States rather than at the border. Until last year, the Trump administration was not enforcing detention of noncitizens who were already in the country and instead allowed them to be released from detention on a bond or parole. The administration then sought to detain noncitizens without the opportunity for release via a bond.
The policy has impacted thousands of immigrants and has already been rejected by hundreds of lower courts. It’s expected to be the blockbuster case of the term, since federal district judges ruled against the administration, but federal appeals courts are divided on the matter.
Additionally, the justices agreed to hear an election- and immigration-centered case, Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for Dec. 8. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether the National Voter Registration Act, or NVRA, stops Arizona from requiring people who are registering to vote to provide proof that they’re a U.S. citizen. The justices will also hear arguments about whether the NVRA prohibits Arizona from implementing a program 90 days before a federal election to cancel registrations of voters who aren’t U.S. citizens.
This policy under consideration is similar to the one Republicans are trying to get passed through Congress in the SAVE Act, which is a key issue for Utah Sen. Mike Lee and Trump.
Second Amendment win possible
The justices also agreed to hear two cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidated into one argument session regarding the right to own AR-15s and semiautomatic rifles.
It will be a major test to the Second and 14th Amendments and whether they guarantee the right to possess those guns.
Shemtob noted in a 2025 term recap and 2026 term preview podcast, “Original Jurisdiction,” that how the justices use text history and originalism will be important in the case. It’s going to be “really interesting” how the Supreme Court will handle the popularity of the rifles, the danger they might pose, and historic prevalence, since there wasn’t “anything quite like” semiautomatic rifles at the time of the Constitution’s drafting, he said.
Ahead of the term’s start, Shemtob said he believes that the court will deliver Second Amendment advocates a win.
“This court has made clear that they are a believer in expansive Second Amendment rights, and Justice Kavanaugh already signaled that he likely would hold such a position in the AR-15 cases,” he said. “So I think I would be very surprised if the court held differently.”
Still, Shemtob said for those opposed to semiautomatic rifles, the case isn’t as big of a deal as some might believe, since it deals with the guns and not high capacity magazines. A case about magazines will likely end up before the court in the future, but it’s not the matter that the justices will decide in this term, he noted.
The justices also agreed to hear a case, Beaird v. United States, which addresses sentencing enhancements for possessing a large capacity magazine. There’s a 1993 precedent, Stinson v. United States, under review, meaning the court could change how judges decide prison sentences under judicial deference.
Experts who spoke at a Federalist Society term preview predicted that the oral argument session for this case, which is scheduled for Oct. 13, will be one of the term’s more interesting argument sessions because “things have changed” since the 1993 precedent and deference has “fallen by the wayside with the court.”
Read more Who is a child of God? Latter-day Saint president declares distinctive beliefs at conference
The two cases come after a firearm-related win last term. The court ruled that marijuana users can own guns, likening it to alcohol usage at the time of the nation’s founding.
Faith-based cases
There are several faith-based cases before the court this term.
One, St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, stems from a challenge to Colorado’s universal preschool program. The state has exempted Christian organizations from its statewide universal preschool program because of the nondiscrimination clause that mandates participating schools can’t ban children of same-sex couples or children based on their sexual orientation and gender identity from attending. The Archdiocese of Denver, which oversees 34 preschools, said it was excluded from the program and state funding because it wouldn’t comply with the nondiscrimination clause.
The justices said when they took up the case that they won’t consider overturning Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 ruling that said exceptions for religious organizations are not required when a law is applied in a neutral and broad manner. Still, it could narrow the precedent involved, since some of the court’s more conservative justices have spoken about revisiting it.
Additionally, the court agreed to hear Grand v. City of University Heights, a case about the permission to gather with others to pray in your own home.
Daniel Grand, a devout Orthodox Jew, wanted to gather about a dozen people in his Cleveland home in 2021 for a minyan, a prayer gathering of a least 10 men. He was stopped by city officials who said he’d have to obtain a permit labeling his home as a place of religious assembly. Grand has argued that the city and its permitting process were hostile to his Jewish religious practice and is asking the court to decide if Americans have to go through permitting processes and if citizens can challenge government threats to their religious freedom.
The Supreme Court also could announce a decision at any time to add another religious-related case to their docket. A petition has been filed asking the justices to review a Texas law that requires the Ten Commandments to be posted in public schools. It’d be an important ruling that could set a new standard for state-sponsored religious expression in schools.
Shemtob predicted that that case, along with a similar one stemming from Louisiana, could be granted by the court for the upcoming term.
Starting the term with a bang
The first case of the term is expected to be a big one. Suncor Energy v. Boulder County will examine whether state courts can push the estimated price of climate change onto energy companies.
Depending on how the justices rule in the case, it could usher in a flurry of environmental lawsuits. Oral arguments are scheduled to take place Monday and a ruling could come any time before the end of June 2027, when the Supreme Court typically wraps up its term.
Boulder County, Colorado, blames Suncore and Exxon Mobile for costs associated with climate change, including local environmental issues, and said it’s a direct result of actions by the two companies. The environmental issues the county claims are more heat waves, increased destructive wildfires, more severe droughts and changing precipitation, and that they threaten the safety of the community and the way of life for outdoor enthusiasts in the area.
Those defending the oil companies say blue states and municipalities are trying to push policy change through the court system. They argue that the Clean Air Act gives the federal government power to govern greenhouse gases, not state- or county-level governments.
“I think what’s interesting about this case is that it should be interesting to people who aren’t just environmental law experts,” Oramel H. Skinner, the executive director of Alliance For Consumers, said on the Federalist Society webinar. “It is a really important case because of the broader context, which is you’re seeing a greater and greater emphasis from blue jurisdictions to use courts … or legislatures to export outside of the state boundaries their policy positions that have not passed in Congress.”
Other notable cases
There’s a case that the Supreme Court took up that could have direct impacts on criminal trials in Utah.
The justices agreed to hear the case Kian v. Florida after a man who was convicted by a six-person jury argued that the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment was that juries for criminal trials mandate it be a 12-person board.
Florida is one of six states that use six-person juries for some criminal trials. If the justices rule that the state was in the wrong in convicting Kian, it would directly affect criminal justice and court systems in Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts and Utah.
Oral arguments have not been scheduled yet for the case, meaning it will be later into the term in 2027.
Additionally, the court granted a capital case, meaning they’re looking at the death penalty for an inmate. In Guerrero v. Johnson, an inmate is looking to have the justices stop him from being executed.
Denter Johnson kidnapped, raped and murdered a woman in 2006, which was four years after the Supreme Court decided that the Eighth Amendment prohibited executing intellectually disabled people. Johnson’s team argued it should be extended to those considered mentally ill.
His trial came amid changing information from the American Psychiatric Association’s consideration of using IQ scores. At first, they concluded he didn’t meet the intellectual disability threshold, but later was reevaluated under the new guidelines and was diagnosed as intellectually disabled.
The question before the justices, which could quite literally mean the difference between life and death for Johnson, is whether a prisoner gets a second chance at an appeal by claiming the legal rule was new even though the rule was already around at the time of the first appeal or trial.
Read more Puka Nacua dominates in his return to the field
Oral arguments are scheduled for Nov. 4.