Supreme Court Opens Its New Term With a Climate Fight. Here Are the Cases That Will Shape 2027

The first Monday in October is the closest thing Washington has to opening day. The marble steps fill up, the lines form before sunrise, and nine people in black robes take the bench to start deciding questions that most of Congress would rather not touch.

This year, opening day comes with a fight over the climate. The very first case the justices hear on October 5 is about whether a Colorado county can make oil companies pay for local damage it blames on climate change. Before Christmas, the Court will also hear cases on assault weapons bans, proof of citizenship to vote, parental rights, and deportations to countries migrants never came from.

Put plainly, this is a term where almost every major cultural and political argument in the country has a case number. Here is what is on the docket, what each side argues, and why it matters to you whether or not you ever set foot in a courtroom.

Opening Day: Boulder Takes On Big Oil

The case is called Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. In April 2018, the City of Boulder and Boulder County sued two energy companies, Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil, in Colorado state court. The local governments say the companies sold and marketed fossil fuels while understanding the climate risks, and that Boulder residents are now paying for it through heat, wildfire, flooding and the costs of adapting public infrastructure. They want the companies to pay what the city calls their “fair share” of those costs, according to the City of Boulder.

The companies have spent eight years trying to move the case to federal court or get it tossed. They lost. In May 2025, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that federal law did not preempt Boulder’s claims and that the lawsuit could proceed under state law. The energy companies appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear it.

The legal question sounds dry, but it is enormous: does federal law block a state or local government from suing over climate change damages under its own state law? There is also a second, technical question about whether the Supreme Court even has the authority to hear the appeal at this stage.

What Boulder argues

Boulder’s position is that the Constitution lets states protect people inside their borders. If Congress wanted to wipe out state-law claims like these, it could pass a law saying so, and it has not. In its filing, the county put it this way: “That climate change is a global problem does not disempower states from redressing its local harms either,” as reported by CBS News.

What the energy companies argue

Suncor and Exxon say this is national energy policy dressed up as a local lawsuit. Emissions from every car, plant and furnace on the planet mix in the same atmosphere, and the companies argue they “cannot be unmixed and traced to their individual sources.” If Boulder wins, they warn, all 50 states could set “countless, conflicting climate policies” through juries, and damage awards could act like a carbon tax that would “bankrupt” the industry.

Both arguments have real weight. Boulder is asking for something courts have long allowed: local governments suing over local harm. The companies are pointing to a real problem: a patchwork of state verdicts setting energy policy that Congress and federal regulators are supposed to handle. Dozens of similar lawsuits by states and cities are waiting on the outcome, so this one decision could either open the floodgates or shut them.

One wrinkle worth watching: Justice Samuel Alito recused himself, without giving a reason. That leaves eight justices on this case, which raises the possibility of a 4-4 tie. A tie would leave the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in place, meaning Boulder’s case would go forward, but it would set no national precedent.

The Same Day: A Veteran’s Fight Over Who Gets to Hear His Case

The second case on opening day gets far less attention, and veterans should pay attention to it. In Johnson v. United States Congress, the question is whether ordinary federal district courts can hear constitutional challenges to laws that govern veterans’ benefits.

Floyd Johnson is an Army veteran serving a long sentence in Florida for state felony convictions. The Department of Veterans Affairs had approved his disability benefits, then cut them to 10 percent under a federal law that reduces benefits for veterans incarcerated for felonies. Johnson, representing himself at first, sued in federal district court, arguing the law itself is unconstitutional. The Eleventh Circuit said the district court had no power to hear it, because the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act sends benefits disputes to a special track: the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and then the Federal Circuit.

Whatever you think of Johnson’s underlying claim, the ruling will reach far beyond one inmate. It will decide whether any veteran who believes a benefits statute is unconstitutional can go to a regular federal court, or must stay inside the VA’s own appeals pipeline, which critics say can take years.

The Rest of October

According to the Court’s October argument calendar and a breakdown by SCOTUSblog, the justices will hear seven cases over five days this month:

• October 6, Anderson v. Intel: how much a worker must show to sue over poorly performing retirement fund options under federal pension law. This one touches millions of 401(k) savers.
• October 7, Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan: whether environmental groups in Guam can challenge an Air Force permit application before the EPA acts on it.
• October 13, Beaird v. United States: whether a 1993 precedent on how courts treat the commentary in federal sentencing guidelines still holds.
• October 13, Genalo v. Black: when an immigrant’s detention becomes so long that he is owed a bond hearing.
• October 14, Salazar v. Paramount Global: who counts as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act, a law that matters every time a streaming service shares what you watch.

November: Faith, Preschool and Public Money

On November 3, the Court hears St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy. Colorado offers up to 15 hours a week of free preschool for 4-year-olds, and private providers can take part. To participate, providers must follow nondiscrimination rules that cover sexual orientation and gender identity. Catholic parishes in the Archdiocese of Denver say those rules would force them to violate church teaching, so they were shut out.

The parishes argue Colorado’s program already has other exemptions, so the rule is not “neutral and generally applicable,” the test the Court uses to decide whether a law burdening religion survives. Colorado says its nondiscrimination requirement “exists in harmony with the First Amendment.” A district court and the Tenth Circuit both sided with the state.

This case sits on top of a string of recent rulings that said states cannot exclude religious groups from public programs just because they are religious. The open question is whether a state can still attach conditions to the money.

December: The Heavy Hitters

The first two weeks of December may be the most consequential run of arguments the Court hears all term.

Assault weapons bans (December 2)

In Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, gun owners challenge AR-15 style rifle bans in Illinois and Connecticut. Both lower courts upheld the bans using the history-and-tradition test from the Court’s 2022 Bruen decision. More than 10 states and Washington, D.C., have similar laws, according to CBS News. Gun rights supporters argue a rifle owned by millions of Americans is “commonly possessed” and cannot be banned. Supporters of the bans argue states have long been allowed to restrict especially dangerous weapons. The Court has turned down similar challenges before, so taking these two signals the justices are ready to answer the question.

Parental rights and youth shelters (December 7)

International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson challenges Washington state laws that let youth shelters withhold notification from parents and provide gender-related care to minors without parental consent. Lower courts dismissed the case because the parents could not show they had been personally harmed, which lawyers call “standing.” The Supreme Court will decide whether parents can bring the challenge at all.

Proof of citizenship to vote (December 8)

Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota is about Arizona laws passed in 2022 that require documentary proof of citizenship to register and set rules for checking voter rolls. Lower courts blocked them as conflicting with the National Voter Registration Act and a 2018 consent decree. The case lands as the citizenship-and-voting debate heats up nationally. We covered a related fight this weekend when a federal judge struck down a noncitizen voting law.

Deportations to third countries (December 9)

In Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., the Trump administration defends its policy, in place since March 2025, of deporting some migrants to countries other than their own without advance notice or a chance to object. A Boston federal judge ruled that violated due process and required written notice and 10 days to raise fears of harm. An appeals court agreed. The Supreme Court has let the removals continue while it decides. The administration calls the policy an “essential tool,” especially for migrants with criminal records whose home countries refuse to take them back. Opponents say sending someone to a country they have never seen, with no hearing, is exactly what due process is supposed to prevent.

Coming in 2027: Detention Without Bond

Likely argued early next year, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha tests the administration’s policy of holding many undocumented immigrants without bond hearings. Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha entered the country illegally more than 20 years ago, was later granted asylum and a work permit, and was detained during a 2025 traffic stop with no chance to ask for bond. The appeals courts are split 9 to 2 against the government. The Second Circuit warned that accepting the administration’s reading would “send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system.”

The Court is also weighing whether to take up more blockbusters, including the military’s transgender service ban, Texas and Louisiana laws requiring the Ten Commandments in classrooms, a challenge involving the $83.3 million E. Jean Carroll defamation judgment against President Trump, and the plea deal for accused 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Why This Term Matters

The Court has been criticized from both directions lately. Conservatives have complained about lower-court judges blocking executive policies nationwide. Liberals have complained about the Court’s growing use of its emergency docket to let those policies take effect with little explanation. That tension has spilled into other parts of the justice system too, as we saw when the Justice Department accused Minnesota judges of misconduct over press interviews.

Here is a fair read of the pattern. On climate, guns, religion and voting, the Court’s majority has generally been skeptical of expanding government power over individual rights and of letting states set national policy through the back door. On immigration, the justices have given the executive branch wide room while still insisting on some due process. Expect that pattern to be tested hard this term.

For ordinary Americans, the practical stakes are concrete. Your energy bills could feel the climate ruling. Your retirement account could feel the Intel case. Your voter registration could feel the Arizona ruling. And if you are a veteran, the Johnson case could decide where you are allowed to argue if a benefits law treats you unfairly.

The arguments start Monday. The answers will come slowly, usually in a flood next June. Pay attention now, because by the time the opinions drop, the debate over what they mean will already be loud.