The Supreme Court began its new term Monday with a docket featuring major disputes over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, state bans on semiautomatic rifles, election rules, climate litigation, religious liberty and high-stakes corporate battles involving Apple and PepsiCo.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court opened its 2026-27 term Monday with a series of cases that could reshape federal immigration enforcement, gun laws, voting requirements, religious protections and the ability of state and local governments to seek billions of dollars from energy companies over climate change.
The justices are also preparing to hear major commercial disputes involving Apple’s App Store and PepsiCo’s use of the word “Rise,” adding significant antitrust and trademark questions to a term already dominated by constitutional and federal-state conflicts.
Most decisions are expected before the court concludes its term around the end of June 2027.
Trump’s Mandatory Immigration Detention Policy
One of the newest additions to the docket challenges the Trump administration’s policy requiring millions of illegal immigrants to remain in detention without access to bond hearings while their deportation proceedings are pending.
The Department of Homeland Security adopted the policy in July 2025, reversing an interpretation of federal immigration law that had been followed for nearly three decades.
Under the earlier practice, immigrants who had already entered and were living in the United States could generally seek release on bond while their immigration cases proceeded.
The Trump administration instead determined that people who entered the country illegally can be treated as “applicants for admission” under federal law and therefore subjected to mandatory detention while removal proceedings are underway.
The Supreme Court agreed Oct. 1 to hear the administration’s appeal after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that interpretation.
The case involves Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national who entered the United States illegally around 2004 or 2005 and remained in the country.
Immigration officers arrested him in Massachusetts in September 2025, and he was initially denied a bond hearing under the administration’s policy. He was later released on bond during subsequent proceedings.
Numerous federal judges and several appellate courts have rejected the administration’s interpretation, while the White House says the policy implements immigration law as Congress intended.
The Supreme Court has not yet announced an argument date.
A decision is expected by the end of June.
Third-Country Deportations
The court will separately decide whether the Trump administration can deport migrants to countries other than their countries of origin without first giving them an opportunity to raise claims that they could face torture, persecution or other serious harm there.
The Supreme Court agreed Sept. 29 to hear the dispute and temporarily allowed the administration to continue the policy while litigation proceeds.
The court put on hold a February ruling from a federal district judge in Massachusetts that found the administration’s third-country removal procedures unlawful.
The justices directed the parties to address whether the lower court had jurisdiction, whether it could issue classwide relief and whether the administration’s policy violates federal immigration law, the Due Process Clause or protections established under federal rules implementing the Convention Against Torture.
Human rights groups say more than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy.
The Trump administration argues that third-country removals are an important enforcement tool, particularly when migrants’ home countries will not accept them or other circumstances prevent their return.
The Supreme Court has directed that arguments occur during its December session.
State Bans on AR-15-Style Rifles
The justices will turn to the Second Amendment on Dec. 2 when they consider challenges to prohibitions on semiautomatic rifles including AR-15s.
The court has consolidated two cases — Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins — involving restrictions in Illinois and Connecticut.
Lower courts upheld the laws, rejecting arguments that bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles violate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Gun-rights organizations and firearm owners argue that AR-15-style rifles are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans and qualify as arms in “common use,” a category they say is protected under the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents.
Supporters of the restrictions characterize the weapons as assault-style firearms and argue governments can restrict weapons they contend present heightened public-safety risks.
The cases give the justices another opportunity to explain how the historical test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen applies to modern firearm regulations.
The court’s December calendar sets the consolidated cases for one hour of argument on Dec. 2.
A decision could determine the future of similar bans around the country.
Boulder Climate Lawsuit Against Exxon and Suncor
The term began Monday with arguments in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a closely watched case examining whether state tort law can be used to seek damages from fossil-fuel companies over alleged climate-related injuries.
Boulder County and the city of Boulder sued ExxonMobil and Suncor in 2018, alleging the companies misled consumers about the effects of fossil fuels while continuing to market their products.
The governments are seeking unspecified damages for costs they attribute to climate change.
Exxon and Suncor argue that interstate and global air pollution are matters governed by federal law and that allowing individual cities and states to impose liability would enable local juries to influence national and international energy policy.
Boulder argues its case is not an effort to regulate emissions but a traditional state-law action based on alleged deception and resulting local damages.
The Colorado Supreme Court allowed the litigation to proceed in a 5-2 ruling in 2025.
During Monday’s Supreme Court argument, the justices appeared divided over whether Boulder’s claims are preempted by federal law and whether the court should resolve the issue at this stage of the litigation.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself, leaving eight justices to decide the case.
Nearly 60 state and local governments have brought similar climate-related lawsuits, giving the decision implications well beyond Colorado.
Arizona Proof-of-Citizenship Voting Requirements
Election law returns to the court Dec. 8 in Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, a dispute involving Arizona requirements intended to prevent non-U.S. citizens from registering or remaining on state voter rolls.
Republicans are seeking to revive provisions that would impose additional proof-of-citizenship requirements and require election officials to take certain steps involving registrants whose citizenship status cannot be confirmed.
Lower courts blocked parts of the law after finding conflicts with federal voter-registration requirements.
The Trump administration is supporting key portions of the challenge.
Supporters argue states have a legitimate interest in verifying that only U.S. citizens participate in elections and maintaining accurate voter rolls.
Opponents contend Arizona imposed requirements inconsistent with federal law and argue the provisions could disproportionately affect Latino, Native American and student voters.
The Supreme Court scheduled arguments for Dec. 8.
The case could clarify how far states may go in demanding documentary evidence of citizenship while administering voter registration under federal election statutes.
Catholic Preschools Challenge Colorado Nondiscrimination Rules
Religious liberty will be before the court Nov. 3 in a dispute involving the Archdiocese of Denver and Colorado’s state-funded universal preschool program.
St. Mary Catholic Parish, St. Bernadette Catholic Parish, families associated with the schools and the Archdiocese of Denver argue that Colorado cannot require religious preschools to abandon faith-based admissions practices as a condition of participating in the publicly funded program.
Colorado requires participating preschools to provide children an “equal opportunity” to enroll regardless of certain protected characteristics, including the sexual orientation or gender identity of a student or family member.
The Catholic plaintiffs contend complying with those requirements could force their schools to act contrary to Catholic teachings and therefore violate protections under the First Amendment.
Colorado argues that religious schools voluntarily participating in a government-funded program must comply with generally applicable program rules.
A lower court rejected the Catholic entities’ constitutional challenge.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether applying the nondiscrimination requirements to those religious schools violates the First Amendment.
The dispute could have broader implications for states that provide public money to private religious schools while attaching nondiscrimination conditions to participation.
Apple’s App Store Battle With Epic Games
The justices will also enter the long-running legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, maker of “Fortnite.”
The Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple’s appeal of a contempt finding stemming from a judicial order requiring changes to the App Store.
Epic sued Apple in 2020, challenging restrictions and commissions imposed through its App Store.
A federal judge in Oakland, California, subsequently issued an injunction intended to allow developers greater freedom to direct customers toward alternative payment methods outside Apple’s purchasing system.
The district court later found Apple in civil contempt, concluding the company had failed to comply fully with the injunction.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld key portions of that ruling.
Apple argues it should not have been held in contempt and has asked the Supreme Court to overturn that determination.
The dispute is significant because Apple’s App Store generates substantial revenue from transactions involving apps and digital services.
The Supreme Court granted review June 30.
An argument date has not yet been announced.
Rise Brewing Takes PepsiCo Trademark Fight to Supreme Court
The justices will also hear a trademark dispute between small canned-coffee company Rise Brewing and beverage giant PepsiCo.
Rise Brewing alleges that PepsiCo infringed its “RISE” trademarks when it introduced the caffeinated beverage Mtn Dew Rise Energy.
The company contends consumers could have believed the two products were connected because both involved single-serving caffeinated drinks marketed in cans and prominently used the word “Rise.”
PepsiCo has disputed that its branding infringed Rise Brewing’s trademarks.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Rise Brewing’s claim, prompting the company to appeal.
The Supreme Court granted the case June 29.
Rise Brewing argues the lower court used the wrong legal approach in assessing whether consumers were likely to be confused by PepsiCo’s branding.
The federal government has also entered the case, filing a brief supporting vacatur of the lower-court decision.
No argument date has been announced.
A Term With Broad Consequences
The cases place several recurring constitutional disputes before the justices at the same time: how much authority the president has to enforce immigration law, how far states can regulate firearms and elections, when federal law prevents states from pursuing their own remedies, and when government funding conditions collide with religious exercise.
The immigration cases will test significant portions of Trump’s enforcement agenda, including mandatory detention and removals to third countries.
The rifle cases could produce the court’s most consequential ruling on semiautomatic firearms since its recent expansion of Second Amendment protections.
The Arizona dispute could alter state authority over proof-of-citizenship requirements, while the Colorado preschool case could further define the constitutional protections available to religious organizations participating in public programs.
The climate case could determine whether dozens of lawsuits against fossil-fuel companies continue in state courts, potentially exposing the industry to substantial damages.
And the Apple and PepsiCo cases give the justices an opportunity to address major questions involving judicial authority, competition and trademark protection.
The Supreme Court began addressing that docket Monday with the Boulder climate case.
By the time the term ends around June 2027, the court is expected to have issued decisions touching some of the most heavily contested areas of American law and public policy.
Original article
Comments