Supreme Court Opens New Term With Climate Liability, Immigration, and Transgender Policy on the Docket
SCOTUSblog reports an immigration-heavy term and a pending emergency request over Bureau of Prisons transgender inmate care.
The Supreme Court began its 2026-27 term with arguments on climate liability, veterans' benefits, retirement plans, and a Navy-adjacent environmental dispute, according to SCOTUSblog. Behind the argued cases, the emergency docket and a growing list of immigration disputes are shaping up as the term's main storylines.
This week's arguments included Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, which asks whether a Colorado state-court suit seeking to hold energy companies liable for alleged contributions to climate change can proceed or whether federal law bars such claims. The Court also heard Johnson v. United States Congress, on whether a federal court may hear a constitutional challenge to a law limiting disability benefits for certain incarcerated veterans; Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, on ERISA claims over retirement investments; and Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guåhan, on how two federal environmental laws interact in a dispute over munitions disposal on a Guam beach. In the veterans' case, Justice Gorsuch told counsel, "Be careful, counsel."
On the interim docket, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay of a Fourth Circuit order in a dispute over FCC broadcasting rates for political ads. The Trump administration's application to block a D.C. federal court order that bars the Bureau of Prisons from enforcing its new transgender inmate healthcare policy remains pending.
SCOTUSblog's Friday newsletter said the Court has granted review in seven immigration-related cases since late April; one was dismissed as moot and six remain on the argument docket, about one-fifth of its cases. Among them: whether working as a cook in a camp run by a terrorist group counts as "material support" under immigration law (Blanche v. Ozurumba). Separately, three cities and a legal services group asked the Court to pause an agreement between Texas and the Justice Department that blocks enforcement of a Biden-era rule letting immigration judges pause some deportation proceedings. The challengers describe the agreement as "egregious collusion."
Why it matters: a Court the public elects no one to sit on will decide questions about energy costs, the border, and how federal prisons treat inmates. We will report rulings as they are issued.
Facts above are attributed to the linked reporting. Statements in a source's own opinion section are labeled as commentary. We correct errors promptly.
More from this section
Midterms 16 Days Out: Senate Ratings Show a 47-47 Split With Toss-Ups Deciding Control
Fox News ratings put Democrats needing a net gain of four seats; Trump frames the vote as a referendum on his second term.
Republicans Break With Trump Over 60-Day Russia Sanctions Waiver
Cruz and Haley criticized the move, McCaul urged a reversal, and Rubio defended it as an energy-market measure.
Government Funding Fight Pushed Past the Midterms: Deadline Is Dec. 11
Congress passed a stopgap 370-48 and left town; Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole warns of "crunch time" and a possible December shutdown.