Supreme Court Sets 2026–27 Term With Major Cases on Guns, Religion, Parental Rights and Elections

The justices have already accepted disputes involving semiautomatic rifle bans, religious liberty, parental rights, jury procedures, voting rules and federal prisoner lawsuits for arguments beginning in October.

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom

The Supreme Court is entering its summer recess with a 2026–27 docket already filled with major constitutional and legal disputes involving the Second Amendment, religious liberty, parental rights, criminal procedure, election law and executive power.

Most of the cases newly accepted by the justices are expected to be argued beginning in October, with decisions likely to be released through the spring and early summer of 2027. Additional petitions on politically significant issues remain pending, meaning the docket could expand further before the new term begins.

The cases continue many of the legal themes that shaped the court’s most recent term, according to Just the News, including disputes over firearms, religion, gender identity, voting rules, civil rights claims and the limits of government authority.

One of the most closely watched cases involves whether the Second Amendment protects ownership of AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles. The court agreed to hear the issue shortly after striking down a Hawaii law that barred concealed-carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property unless the owner gave explicit permission.

The justices will consider two related cases together. One involves a challenge by Cutberto Viramontes to Cook County, Illinois’ ban on semiautomatic rifles. The other involves a challenge by gun owners and gun-rights organizations to a Connecticut law enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre.

The issue had already drawn interest from several members of the court. Last year, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch signaled interest in the AR-15 question. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also wrote that the constitutionality of AR-15 bans was a question the court would need to address “soon, in the next Term or two.”

The cases are expected to be argued this fall and could become the court’s most significant Second Amendment ruling since New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court did not take up a separate group of pending challenges to restrictions on large-capacity magazines.

Religious liberty will also return to the court in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a case involving a Catholic preschool in Littleton, Colorado. The school challenged its exclusion from the state’s universal preschool program after refusing to comply with requirements barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity without a religious exemption.

The dispute is being watched not only for its direct effect on religious schools, but also because some justices have suggested the case could offer a chance to revisit Employment Division v. Smith, the 1990 decision that limited Free Exercise Clause challenges to generally applicable laws.

The court also accepted Grand v. City of University Heights, an Ohio case brought by a homeowner who says city officials violated his constitutional rights by requiring a permit before he could host a neighborhood prayer group in his home.

Another case on the docket involves parental rights and transgender-related care for minors. In International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, the justices will consider whether parents may challenge Washington laws allowing licensed youth shelters to provide mental-health services, including gender-transition-related care, to runaway minors without notifying or obtaining parental consent.

The case follows the court’s recent involvement in disputes involving gender identity and minors, including cases involving state restrictions on transgender medical treatments and participation in female sports.

The court will also hear a Florida criminal-law case focused on whether the Constitution allows non-unanimous jury recommendations to support death sentences or other serious criminal judgments under the Sixth Amendment.

The case could clarify the reach of the jury-trial right and affect how states structure criminal verdicts and sentencing procedures. A ruling could carry implications beyond Florida.

Election law is also on the docket. In Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, the justices will review Arizona’s requirement that voter-registration applicants provide proof of citizenship. The case also asks whether federal law allows states to remove noncitizens from voter rolls within 90 days of a federal election.

The court has not yet agreed to hear related Pennsylvania mail-in ballot cases, but it has asked the Trump administration to weigh in on challenges to a requirement that mail-in voters handwrite the date on their ballots. That request signals that the justices may later consider whether to take up those disputes.

The justices also agreed to hear Nielsen v. Watanabe, a case involving whether a federal prisoner may bring an implied damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents over alleged deliberate indifference to medical needs after he was beaten by other inmates.

The court has narrowed Bivens claims in recent years, and some court watchers say the new case could give the justices an opportunity to consider whether to overrule the 1971 precedent rather than continue restricting it case by case.

In addition to the constitutional cases, the court has accepted several commercial, statutory and property-rights disputes.

Apple Inc. v. Epic Games asks how clear a court order must be before a party can be held in civil contempt for violating it.

RiseandShine Corp. v. PepsiCo asks whether a trademark’s “inherent strength” should be treated as a legal question for judges or a factual question for juries.

Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission involves how to calculate “just compensation” when private property is condemned under the federal Natural Gas Act.

Wassily v. Blanche asks whether noncitizens whose asylum status has been terminated remain eligible to adjust to lawful permanent resident status.

The accepted cases place the Supreme Court at the center of another consequential term, following recent major decisions involving birthright citizenship, presidential removal authority and transgender athletes.

With additional petitions still pending on nationwide injunctions, administrative power and other disputed areas of federal law, the 2026–27 term could grow even broader before arguments begin.