2026-2027 Supreme Court Term

Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County (No. 25-170) 

Argument: Oct. 5, 2026

Following a playbook that helped defeat Big Tobacco, Boulder County and the city of Boulder sued Suncor and ExxonMobil under garden-variety Colorado law including nuisance, trespass, civil conspiracy, and deceptive trade practices. Both city and county assert that these companies knew, for decades, their products would cook the planet, despite public assertions claiming otherwise. As a result of decades of lies, Colorado taxpayers are now footing the bill for climate change in the form of wildfires, drought, and flooding. The Court took this case after a May 2025 Colorado Supreme Court 5-2 ruling that held both federal common law and the Clean Air Act do not preempt the localities’ state law-based lawsuits. Any decision gifting Big Oil and Gas Companies with blanket federal immunity from state tort law here could potentially wipe out the dozens of climate deception cases that states and localities have filed around the country.

Indefinite Detention

Genalo v. Black (No. 25-886)

Argument: Oct. 13, 2026 

Though Keisy G.M. is a lawful permanent resident from the Dominican Republic, immigration officers took him into custody in October 2020 and held him for 21 months while the government tried to deport him. He was held for nearly two years without a bond hearing or individualized finding that he was a flight risk. The Second Circuit held that G.M.’s prolonged detention triggered due process, one requiring the government to justify why they had to lock him up with clear and convincing evidence. The Trump administration challenged this finding and asked the Court to assert that no such right exists. Since G.M. was released in 2022, the Court added a “mootness” question to consider as well, possibly giving themselves an off ramp to dismiss this case.

Recovering Attorney’s Fees for Unlawful Detention

Montoya Palacios v. Liggins (No. 25-1223) 

Argument: Not Yet Scheduled

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) allows certain individuals, veterans, small businesses, and nonprofits to recover attorney’s fees and litigation costs when they prevail in civil or adversary adjudication cases against the federal government, so long as the government’s position was not “substantially justified.” In this case, the justices will be considering whether EAJA would also cover civil immigration cases so that immigrants who win a habeas challenge for unlawful detention can recover attorney’s fees from the government. A ruling that immigration habeas isn’t covered by EAJA would enable the government to unlawfully detain immigrants with no accountability mechanism. Without the prospect of attorney fees, most detained people would not be able to obtain counsel.

Backpay Enforcement For Migrant Workers

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC (No. 25-966)

Argument: Nov. 10, 2026 

The Department of Labor ordered Sun Valley Orchards to pay back wages they had cheated out of the farm’s H-2A guestworkers and domestic workers. Instead of complying, and reminiscent of the Court’s reasoning in the 2024 case SEC v. Jarkesy, Sun Valley argued that the entire administrative enforcement scheme is unconstitutional because only an Article III court with a jury may impose monetary remedies.

Unsurprisingly, the amicus contributors for this case include many pro-business, pro-corporate groups that have spent decades undermining workers’ rights, including the Chamber of Commerce, Cato Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, New Civil Liberties Alliance, Texas Public Policy Foundation and Edwin Meese. On the pro-workers’ rights side, AFL-CIO, Public Citizen, National Lawyers Guild, Constitutional Accountability Center, and a group of administrative law professors have also submitted amicus briefs. Any attempt to further strip administrative agencies of their power to enforce protections (such as in this instance) could leave some of the most underpaid, exploited, and marginalized workers in America with no enforcement mechanism for work site abuses and misconduct.

Voting Access

Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota (No. 25-1017)

Argument: Not Yet Scheduled

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) allows voters to register to vote at the same time they apply for their driver’s license. These requirements apply to 44 states as well as the District of Columbia, and voters are allowed to complete their registration process through the mail or in person.

In 2022, Arizona passed two additional hurdles to voting. First, they required new voter registrants to provide a physical “documentary proof of citizenship.” Secondly, Arizona enabled county recorders to conduct citizenship audits of voter registration rolls against both state and federal databases.

Mi Familia Vota and others filed suit to block these state laws from going into effect. A divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement conflicted with a consent decree entered into by Arizona’s secretary of state. The court also found that NVRA’s registration form (which does not require physical proof of citizenship) takes precedence over state law. The court of appeals further held that any voter audit needed to conclude 90 days before a federal election in order to conform with the NVRA.

The Republican National Committee of Arizona appealed this decision and has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. Siding with the RNC to greenlight these additional hurdles would render another blow to voting access and our democracy. Such demands would screen out lower income voters, people who have changed their names, naturalized citizens, and anyone who doesn’t happen to have easy ways to obtain a passport or their birth certificate. Furthermore, systemic voter purges are known to be incredibly inaccurate. The current 90-day window barring these purges allows necessary time to fix impactful errors.

Siding with the RNC here would render a third blow to democracy after last term’s Louisiana v. Callais Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections decisions.

Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238), consolidated with Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566)

Argument: Not Yet Scheduled

When Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya were barred from owning AR-15 style weapons after they were banned in Cook County, Illinois, they joined two gun-rights organizations and filed a suit arguing that the law banning the sale, transfer, and possession of semiautomatic rifles violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Both an Illinois district court and the Seventh Circuit sided with Cook County and upheld the assault weapons ban. The Court has now granted certiorari and consolidated this case with another related case for oral argument. A decision overturning this ban could void other assault weapons bans in Connecticut, California, New York, and a dozen other states — bans that have drastically reduced mass shootings, including school shootings, compared to states without such bans.

Access to Medically Necessary Care 

International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson (No. 25-840)

Argument: Not Yet Scheduled

In 2023, the state of Washington took “modest steps to address the crisis of transgender youth homelessness” by updating its laws to allow minors in shelters to access “health care — including gender-affirming care — without contacting their parents.” Staff must still make good faith efforts to notify the minor’s parents and are only allowed to withhold information if sharing it would cause harm to the minor. Advocates note this policy is “necessary to keep minors off the street,” reflecting statistics that LGBTQ+ youth are more than twice as likely to experience homelessness and make up as much of 40% of all homeless youth.

In response, the International Partners for Ethical Care and a group of parents challenged these laws, claiming they chill speech and “deliberately displace their decision-making role.” The Ninth Circuit court of appeals dismissed their case for lack of standing, concluding that parents “cannot manufacture standing” merely from “fears of hypothetical future harm.” The issue of legal standing is often political, and if the Court grants these parents standing, it could open the door for special interest groups to manufacture so-alled grievances in order to get other culture war issues into federal court, including legal challenges to school curricula, library books, vaccination policies, and confidential reproductive care. It would also advance yet another challenge to the medical necessity of gender-affirming care for transgender people while protecting the abuse of anti-LGBTQ+ parental rejection.

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy (No. 25-581)

Argument: Nov. 3, 2026

The Court will be deciding whether a Colorado taxpayer funded universal preschool program can be used to discriminate against preschoolers with same-sex parents. After being denied Universal Preschool Program funds for refusing to accept the children of LGBTQ+ parents, two anti-LGBTQ+ Catholic schools and the Archdiocese of Denver argued that Colorado’s ban on discrimination due to religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity interferes with their ability to practice their religion.

The Court’s decision here could potentially overturn decades of precedent and Employment Division v. Smith, which held that the government could make laws that infringed on the free exercise of religion so long as it was generally applicable. In 2021, the Court ruled against the city of Philadelphia (Fulton v. City of Philadelphia) when it similarly refused to contract with a Catholic foster-care agency that refused to place children in same-sex households, which the city said violated its nondiscrimination ordinance.

Nearly 180 members of Congress have signed onto an amicus brief urging the Court to uphold Colorado’s nondiscrimination policy in schools. Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus notes, “A court ruling creating a new religious exemption would fly in the face of established precedent and would endanger a myriad of other carefully-crafted laws that have been designed to protect Americans from discrimination.” Allowing a religious exemption here could also threaten the future of other anti-discriminatory laws, including Title VII, Title IX, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Fair Housing Act.

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy (No. 25-581)

Argument: Nov. 3, 2026

The Court will be deciding whether a Colorado taxpayer funded universal preschool program can be used to discriminate against preschoolers with same-sex parents. After being denied Universal Preschool Program funds for refusing to accept the children of LGBTQ+ parents, two anti-LGBTQ+ Catholic schools and the Archdiocese of Denver argued that Colorado’s ban on discrimination due to religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity interferes with their ability to practice their religion.

The Court’s decision here could potentially overturn decades of precedent and Employment Division v. Smith, which held that the government could make laws that infringed on the free exercise of religion so long as it was generally applicable. In 2021, the Court ruled against the city of Philadelphia (Fulton v. City of Philadelphia) when it similarly refused to contract with a Catholic foster-care agency that refused to place children in same-sex households, which the city said violated its nondiscrimination ordinance.

Nearly 180 members of Congress have signed onto an amicus brief urging the Court to uphold Colorado’s nondiscrimination policy in schools. Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus notes, “A court ruling creating a new religious exemption would fly in the face of established precedent and would endanger a myriad of other carefully-crafted laws that have been designed to protect Americans from discrimination.” Allowing a religious exemption here could also threaten the future of other anti-discriminatory laws, including Title VII, Title IX, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Fair Housing Act.

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (No. 25-183)

Argument: Not Yet Scheduled

Title IX prohibits sex discrimination for schools that receive federal funding. In 1982, the Court further held that Title IX also covers employment related to sex discrimination but never decided whether there was an implied private right of action for school faculty to also sue for sex discrimination. The justices here granted a joint petition stemming from two separate lawsuits brought against Georgia universities.

Georgia Tech women’s basketball coach MaChelle Joseph sued for sex discrimination under Title IX after she was terminated in March 2019. She was fired shortly after filing a formal internal complaint alleging Georgia Tech’s sex discrimination, including inferior resources and lower staff salaries for the women’s basketball team compared to the men’s basketball team.

Professor Thomas Crowther also sued for sex discrimination under Title IX after allegations of sexual harassment. A subsequent investigation found that Crowther had violated Augusta University’s sexual harassment policy and the university declined to renew his contract. Crowther argued that the investigation was biased against him as a male, as he was denied access to his accusers, most of whom were not interviewed.

The district court in the Northern District of Georgia dismissed Joseph’s (Georgia Tech coach) Title IX claim while denying the motion to dismiss Crowther’s (Augusta University professor) case. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Joseph’s dismissal and reversed the dismissal of Crowther’s claims. Now the Court will be deciding whether Title IX allows for an implied private right of action for sex discrimination claims made by employees.

The National Women’s Law Center, Lambda Legal, National Education Association, and the Constitutional Accountability Center have all filed amicus briefs siding with employees Joseph and Crowther.

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (No. 25-183)

Argument: Not Yet Scheduled

Title IX prohibits sex discrimination for schools that receive federal funding. In 1982, the Court further held that Title IX also covers employment related to sex discrimination but never decided whether there was an implied private right of action for school faculty to also sue for sex discrimination. The justices here granted a joint petition stemming from two separate lawsuits brought against Georgia universities.

Georgia Tech women’s basketball coach MaChelle Joseph sued for sex discrimination under Title IX after she was terminated in March 2019. She was fired shortly after filing a formal internal complaint alleging Georgia Tech’s sex discrimination, including inferior resources and lower staff salaries for the women’s basketball team compared to the men’s basketball team.

Professor Thomas Crowther also sued for sex discrimination under Title IX after allegations of sexual harassment. A subsequent investigation found that Crowther had violated Augusta University’s sexual harassment policy and the university declined to renew his contract. Crowther argued that the investigation was biased against him as a male, as he was denied access to his accusers, most of whom were not interviewed.

The district court in the Northern District of Georgia dismissed Joseph’s (Georgia Tech coach) Title IX claim while denying the motion to dismiss Crowther’s (Augusta University professor) case. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Joseph’s dismissal and reversed the dismissal of Crowther’s claims. Now the Court will be deciding whether Title IX allows for an implied private right of action for sex discrimination claims made by employees.

The National Women’s Law Center, Lambda Legal, National Education Association, and the Constitutional Accountability Center have all filed amicus briefs siding with employees Joseph and Crowther.

Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota (No. 25-1017)

Argument: Not Yet Scheduled

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) allows voters to register to vote at the same time they apply for their driver’s license. These requirements apply to 44 states as well as the District of Columbia, and voters are allowed to complete their registration process through the mail or in person.

In 2022, Arizona passed two additional hurdles to voting. First, they required new voter registrants to provide a physical “documentary proof of citizenship.” Secondly, Arizona enabled county recorders to conduct citizenship audits of voter registration rolls against both state and federal databases.

Mi Familia Vota and others filed suit to block these state laws from going into effect. A divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement conflicted with a consent decree entered into by Arizona’s secretary of state. The court also found that NVRA’s registration form (which does not require physical proof of citizenship) takes precedence over state law. The court of appeals further held that any voter audit needed to conclude 90 days before a federal election in order to conform with the NVRA.

The Republican National Committee of Arizona appealed this decision and has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. Siding with the RNC to greenlight these additional hurdles would render another blow to voting access and our democracy. Such demands would screen out lower income voters, people who have changed their names, naturalized citizens, and anyone who doesn’t happen to have easy ways to obtain a passport or their birth certificate. Furthermore, systemic voter purges are known to be incredibly inaccurate. The current 90-day window barring these purges allows necessary time to fix impactful errors.

Siding with the RNC here would render a third blow to democracy after last term’s Louisiana v. Callais Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections decisions.

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC (No. 25-966)

Argument: Nov. 10, 2026 

The Department of Labor ordered Sun Valley Orchards to pay back wages they had cheated out of the farm’s H-2A guestworkers and domestic workers. Instead of complying, and reminiscent of the Court’s reasoning in the 2024 case SEC v. Jarkesy, Sun Valley argued that the entire administrative enforcement scheme is unconstitutional because only an Article III court with a jury may impose monetary remedies.

Unsurprisingly, the amicus contributors for this case include many pro-business, pro-corporate groups that have spent decades undermining workers’ rights, including the Chamber of Commerce, Cato Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation, New Civil Liberties Alliance, Texas Public Policy Foundation and Edwin Meese. On the pro-workers’ rights side, AFL-CIO, Public Citizen, National Lawyers Guild, Constitutional Accountability Center, and a group of administrative law professors have also submitted amicus briefs. Any attempt to further strip administrative agencies of their power to enforce protections (such as in this instance) could leave some of the most underpaid, exploited, and marginalized workers in America with no enforcement mechanism for work site abuses and misconduct.