As the U.S. Supreme Court opens its new term in Washington on Monday, October 5, 2026, the justices face a packed docket of high-stakes disputes over climate change, immigration, and gun rights while facing intense political pressure and a looming midterm election.
Climate Damages and Gun Rights Headline the Merits Docket
The high court convened on Monday morning with big test cases on religion, bans on semi-automatic weapons, climate change, immigration, and election law waiting in the wings. Chief Justice John Roberts, surrounded by his eight colleagues, called the court into public session precisely at 10 a.m. EDT to begin oral arguments, as reported by Fox News.
The first case on the merits docket tackles a first-of-its-kind climate dispute. Local governments, including Boulder County, sued energy companies, including Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. in Colorado state court. The municipalities seek financial damages for the role that fossil-fuel production allegedly played in contributing to climate change and harming local infrastructure through extreme weather like floods, droughts, and wildfires. (Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case Monday.)
Later in the term, the court will weigh whether state and local governments violate the Second Amendment when they ban semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. That case stems from a challenge to a Cook County, Illinois, government ban brought by petitioners including Cutberto Viramontes, Christopher Khaya, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Justice Department Wins Most Emergency Cases Since 2025
Beyond the merits docket, the Trump administration’s aggressive agenda continues to drive heavy reliance on the court’s emergency shadow docket
. University of Massachusetts professor and high-court politicization specialist Paul Collins observed that the nation’s highest judicial body utilizes that mechanism to settle significant public-policy questions.
The Justice Department has won over 70% of its emergency cases before the Supreme Court since 2025, according to legal reporting from Fox News. This deference allowed the administration to move forward temporarily on measures such as new federal rules for verifying voter citizenship status.
The justices have also agreed to hear major immigration disputes. These include challenges to mandatory detention policies for certain noncitizens and fast-tracked third-country deportations where migrants are sent to nations where they lack ties. While lower appellate courts have sharply divided or rejected the administration’s interpretation of mandatory detention without bond, the Supreme Court permitted fast-tracked third-country deportations to restart late last month while underlying legal questions are weighed in December.
Trump Regrets Appointing Three Conservative Justices
The collision between the judiciary and the executive branch has triggered sharp public friction. After the Supreme Court blocked an administration attempt to rewrite mail-in voting rules ahead of the midterms, President Donald Trump lashed out on Truth Social at the three conservative justices he appointed.
“These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves.”
Donald Trump, U.S. President
Trump added in a subsequent interview with Time
magazine that he regretted selecting Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, stating that “I gave them the chance of a lifetime, and it’s unfortunate what they did.” At the same time, public polling from Marquette University indicates that a majority of Americans believe the justices are motivated primarily by politics, though legal scholars emphasize that the court ruled against the president on several major priorities last term, including global tariffs and birthright citizenship restrictions. President Trump’s return to the White House makes this the second full term for the nation’s highest bench.
Supreme Court Reviews Arizona Voter Registration Requirements
As the November midterm elections approach, election law remains a critical flashpoint. The justices scheduled oral arguments for December 8 in Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, a high-stakes challenge centered on Arizona’s voting requirements.
The court will determine whether the National Voter Registration Act stops Arizona from requiring voter-registration applicants to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. The justices will also rule on whether the statute forbids Arizona from carrying out an initiative within 90 days of a federal contest to purge the voter rolls of individuals who lack American citizenship.
