The Supreme Court returns from its summer recess at the start of October, when the justices will begin hearing the first of several closely watched cases on their schedule, including major cases regarding the First and Second amendments.
The high court has announced 25 cases it will hear in its upcoming term, which begins Oct. 5 and continues through the end of June, and it will likely add nearly three dozen more cases in the coming weeks. Among the 25 cases that the Supreme Court has said it will hear in the coming months, six of them could have wider implications for gun rights, climate change lawsuits, voting rights, and excessive fines.
Assault weapons ban
The legality of state “assault weapons” bans has been a top issue for Second Amendment activists for several years, and the justices confirmed they will weigh the question in their upcoming term.
The consolidated cases in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins will deal with whether assault weapons bans, which typically outlaw the purchase of AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles, are constitutional under the Second and 14th amendments. The two cases are over laws in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut, respectively, but are similar to laws in other states that will be affected by the high court’s eventual ruling.
Pro-gun advocates have urged the high court to strike down the laws as violations of the Second Amendment, arguing that allowing states to ban popular modern firearms, such as AR-15 style guns, would be incompatible with federal law and the country’s tradition of firearm regulations. Cook County and Connecticut officials have defended the sweeping bans as lawful, arguing that AR-15-style weapons are “dangerous and unusual” and that those specific weapons may be banned while still respecting the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has handed pro-gun advocates several key wins over the past two decades, and they are cautiously optimistic they could get another major win in the “assault weapons” ban case. The high court will hear arguments in the case Dec. 2, with a ruling expected by the end of June.
Climate change lawsuits
The first case the Supreme Court hears in its upcoming term will be a major one, likely deciding the fate of various costly climate change lawsuits across the country.
The case Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County will decide whether a lawsuit brought by Boulder County, Colorado, seeking to hold oil companies accountable for their alleged role in global climate change, can proceed. The case is expected to have sweeping ramifications for similar lawsuits that climate activists and Democrat-led jurisdictions have attempted to bring against oil companies, either broadly allowing them to proceed or shutting them down as barred by federal law.
The oil companies and the Justice Department have argued that the high court should shut down these lawsuits, saying that states and local jurisdictions cannot regulate matters beyond their borders and that only the federal government may take action regulating domestic emissions. Boulder County and environmental groups argue that global climate change can be identified and quantified for specific jurisdictions and that the lawsuits should be allowed to continue.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Suncor case Oct. 5, with a ruling expected as soon as early 2027.
Parental rights in Washington state
Parental rights have been a recurring issue at the Supreme Court in recent years, and the justices will hear another case on those rights involving a controversial law in the state of Washington.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson next term, which centers on a law in Washington that allows runaway minors to receive transgender surgeries without parental permission, in addition to exempting the state from a requirement to inform the parents of their child’s location and condition, by making genital and chest surgeries a “protected health care service.” The high court will decide whether parents may sue the state over the law, which they claim “deliberately displaces their decisionmaking role as to ‘gender transitions’ of their children, and in so doing creates present and likely future impediments to their ability to parent their children as they deem best for them.”
The coalition of parents suing argues that the law violates constitutional protections for parents to make decisions in their children’s lives, and that the state is attempting to create a roadblock for parents exercising those rights. Washington officials have argued the Supreme Court should not permit the parents to move forward with their lawsuit, claiming they are “offering a series of hypothetical events” and have failed to show any legal standing to bring their challenge of the law.
Oral arguments for International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson are scheduled for Dec. 7, with a ruling by the high court expected by the end of June.
Religious freedom in Colorado
Colorado has been on the wrong side of a trio of First Amendment challenges to its laws at the Supreme Court over the past decade, and it could be in for another loss in another major case set to be heard by the justices in the upcoming term.
The high court will hear arguments in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a case involving Colorado’s decision to exclude Catholic preschools from its universal preschool program. The Archdiocese of Denver and a group of Catholic preschools sued the state over its exclusion as a violation of the First Amendment, after the state said they would be required to accept families who do not share Catholic beliefs.
The Catholic schools argue that the state allows schools that admit only “children of color” and “gender-nonconforming children,” among other exclusionary enrollment requirements, but denied Catholic schools admission into the UPK program for limiting their admission to families who share Catholic beliefs. Religious activists of other faiths have also expressed concern over Colorado’s policy, with some worried it could lead to them having to give up their religious beliefs to participate in government programs. Colorado officials have urged the Supreme Court to uphold lower court rulings that found the UPK program “affirmatively welcomes faith-based providers while allowing no exceptions from its equal-opportunity requirements.”
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the St. Mary case Nov. 3, with a decision expected as soon as early 2027.
Voter registration requirements
Elections and voting laws were among the main issues that emerged during the Supreme Court’s past term, and for the high court’s upcoming term, the justices will hear another case involving voting laws brought by the Republican National Committee.
In Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, the justices will examine an Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship for a state voter registration form. The first question the Supreme Court will weigh deals with whether either the National Voter Registration Act or a federal consent decree prohibits the state from asking for proof of citizenship when using a state form to register to vote. The second question the high court will deal with in the case is whether the NVRA bars Arizona from checking for and purging its voter rolls of noncitizens within 90 days of a federal election.
The RNC, which was behind a case last term challenging a law allowing late-arriving mail ballots, asked the Supreme Court to uphold the Arizona requirements, urging the justices to reverse the lower court’s decision striking down the “common-sense steps to enforce its citizenship qualification and secure its elections.” The left-leaning groups Mi Familia Vota and Voto Latino have argued that state provisions regarding proof of citizenship are unlawful and superseded by federal law.
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in this case for Dec. 8, with a decision expected by the end of June.
Alaska seizing plane over six-pack of beer
One of the most unique cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear in its upcoming term involves a six-pack of beer and a seized airplane.
In the case Jouppi v. Alaska, Kenneth Jouppi claims his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when the state of Alaska seized his $95,000 plane after one of his passengers brought a six-pack of Budweiser into a village where it is unlawful to have alcohol. The Supreme Court will review his case under the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment, specifically looking at whether a court should be required to look at the “underlying offense purely in the abstract or should consider the gravity of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing.”
FEMALE-ONLY SPA ASKS SUPREME COURT TO LET THEM BAN ‘SWINGING D***S’
The case will be heard by the Supreme Court on Dec. 1, with a decision expected as soon as early 2027.
The Supreme Court is also set to add dozens of other cases in the coming months, with petitions pending on a variety of issues ranging from mandatory detention for illegal immigrants to the Justice Department’s ability to appoint interim prosecutors. The high court could begin adding additional cases to its calendar as early as later this month, following its first closed-door conference Sept. 28.