Previewing the 2026-2027 Supreme Court Term: Continuing the Rightward March

This year, the Supreme Court will continue hearing and deciding cases that will impact the rights and freedoms of Americans in all walks of life. As in past years, it is likely that the right-wing supermajority on the high court will use these cases to advance the conservative agenda, curtailing the rights of individual Americans and their ability to hold powerful bad actors accountable while expanding the rights of corporations and the president to do as they please.

Over the summer, the Supreme Court’s emergency motions, or “shadow,” docket maintained a steady pace with multiple matters landing before the court during its recess period. Though the court refused to let the Trump administration institute a new U.S. Postal Service vote-by-mail regulation, which could have disenfranchised millions of voters who would not have been able to receive their ballots because states would not have time to redesign and print ballot envelopes or otherwise comply with the new rule. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented that the fact that several states would effectively not be able to administer their vote-by-mail systems under the new rule did not matter and the president should be able to move forward with his plan. This came shortly after a 6–3 decision in a related case that actually allowed the administration to proceed with the plan on the basis that litigants had sued too early to stop it from going forward. In a less critical but still concerning  5-4 decision the court overturned a lower court injunction to halt construction of the White House East Wing ballroom, despite a dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts arguing the project was likely unlawful.

Once the court’s new term begins on October 5, 2026, it will hear cases that will affect American workers, women, the environment, and more. The court is still in the process of granting certiorari to additional matters that will be argued in this term and is also expected to face a barrage of emergency cases ahead of and following the midterm elections.

These emergency cases will likely be crucial to whether American democracy will continue to exist as we have known it for the last 250 years, but as they are not yet even pending before the lower courts, this article will focus on the potential impacts of seven major merits cases presently scheduled for argument.

Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County

A case on the court’s docket this term that could impact Americans’ ability to hold polluters liable for the ravages of climate change is Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, which is scheduled to be argued on October 5, 2026. This matter will address whether federal law preempts state law claims against fossil fuel companies for economic and other damage caused by climate change and whether these claims can continue in state courts. In the underlying case, the Colorado Supreme Court held that individuals and entities can sue fossil fuel companies under state laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether this can continue moving forward.

This will be a crucial case to determine whether Americans can protect themselves—or at least not suffer from the massive economic impacts—from the ravages of climate change while fossil fuel companies continue to make record profits. If the high court rules in line with its holding in last term’s 7–2 decision in Monsanto v. Durnell, it does not bode well for the ability of individuals and states to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in driving climate change.

Wassily v. Blanche

The Supreme Court will also hear Wassily v. Blanche, a 2nd Circuit case that addresses how noncitizens granted asylum may adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident under the Refugee Act. The lower court found that only noncitizens whose asylum status has not been terminated may adjust their status to become a lawful permanent resident. If the Supreme Court agrees, this will prevent noncitizens whose asylum claims have been terminated from having a pathway to citizenship.

Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota

This matter, arising from the 9th Circuit, will have significant effects on how citizens across the country are able to register to vote. The lower court previously held that the National Voter Registration Act, which contains no proof-of-citizenship mandates, preempts an Arizona law requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. Several states are in the process of attempting to require Americans to prove their citizenship with a limited universe of documents in order to vote. Should the Supreme Court overturn the 9th Circuit, it could substantially increase the barriers to voting for large groups of citizens in line with President Trump’s push for passage of the SAVE Act.

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy

The court will consider whether the First Amendment requires Colorado to create a religious exemption allowing for participation by private religious schools in its universal pre-K program. In this matter, Colorado excluded Catholic preschools from the program, which allows families to receive up to 15 hours of free preschool per week. Colorado requires the schools to sign a nondiscrimination agreement, allowing enrollment regardless of “religious affiliation, sexual orientation, [and] gender identity.” In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, Catholic preschools are challenging whether a refusal to serve LGBTQI+ families violates their freedom of religion. If the court agrees with the parish, it will continue its erasure of the separation of church and state by requiring taxpayer dollars to flow to religious institutions, further freeing them from having to abide by laws of general applicability, especially with regard to antidiscrimination laws.

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards

This case from the 3rd Circuit follows directly from the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Jarkesy, which held that the SEC could not use administrative courts to impose financial penalties on entities that violate regulations under the agency’s purview. In Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, an administrative law judge within the Department of Labor (DOL) fined Sun Valley Orchards for violations under the H-2A agricultural guest worker program for depriving workers of kitchen access, providing pest-infested housing, and firing them before their contracts expired. The 3rd Circuit held that in the wake of Jarkesy, the DOL could not use administrative remedies to fine farms that violated the law and must file suit in Article III courts. The Supreme Court will now decide the matter, which could further weaken the government’s ability to protect individuals from corporate abuse.

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

This case, arising from the 11th Circuit, addresses whether individuals have a right to sue their employers, federally funded schools, under Title IX for sex discrimination in educational settings. There is currently a circuit split on whether there is a private cause of action for discrimination for employees under Title IX, whereby most circuits permit it, but it is prohibited in the 5th, 7th, and 11th Circuits, which include much of the South, as well as Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. If the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, only causes of action under Title VII, covering sex-based discrimination in the workplace, will be permitted to proceed.

International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson

In this case impacting LGBTQI+ rights, parents in Washington state are seeking standing to challenge state laws that allow youth shelters to not contact parents not only when children face possible abuse or neglect at home, but also when they are “seeking or receiving protected health care services,” including gender-affirming care. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the parents have standing to sue to challenge the state laws.

Under existing laws, shelters must contact the state Department of Children, Youth, and Families, which must then make a good faith attempt to contact the family, and must make referrals for “appropriate behavioral health services.” The families involved in the case, who have children experiencing gender dysphoria, are challenging the laws on parental rights and First Amendment grounds, arguing they violate their rights to raise their children as they see fit, to refuse medical care for their children, and to speak freely on matters of gender. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, and the 9th Circuit affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court’s decision could further undermine the rights of LGBTQI+ youth.

Given the scope of these cases and the makeup of the Supreme Court, it is likely that the court will issue opinions that further restrict the rights of Americans. The decisions could limit citizens’ rights to sue corporations for inherent harm caused by climate change, undermine the government’s efforts to nimbly enforce laws that protect the powerless from corporate abuse, and minimize the rights of transgender youth, all while expanding exemptions for religious entities to be free of laws of general applicability, which apply to everyone regardless of race, sex, or religion.

These decisions will not include the likely numerous cases that will arise on an emergency basis surrounding the midterm elections. And once again, this Supreme Court is proving the point that drastic reforms are necessary—be they term limits, a binding code of ethics, shadow docket limitations, and more. The Supreme Court should take great pains to ensure that it follows the motto etched on the front of the courthouse—“Equal Justice Under Law”—and apply it to protect the weak and innocent, not just the powerful.