New Supreme Court Term Another Opportunity for Civil Rights Setbacks

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 5, 2026 – Today the Supreme Court reconvenes to begin its 2026–2027 term, which is already loaded up with opportunities for the MAGA majority to further roll back our civil rights, endanger our wellness, rig the economy for corporations, and compromise our democracy.

An attack on immigrants bears consequences for far more voters at the polls. Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota is a case about whether Arizona can require proof of citizenship to register to vote and conduct citizenship audits of the voter rolls, despite a lack of evidence that non-citizen voting is even happening. These laws would create hurdles for voter access for lower income voters, anyone who’s changed their name, naturalized citizens, and anyone else who faces challenges obtaining a passport or their birth certificate.

Two different cases threaten to further erode LGBTQ+ protections. International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson is a case about whether homeless transgender kids — who in some cases have already been kicked out of their homes by their parents for their identity — can access the medically necessary health care they deserve without parental permission. St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy considers whether a Catholic school that receives taxpayer funding can refuse to serve the students of LGBTQ+ families.

Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County could provide another opportunity for oil companies to skirt responsibility for the harm they’ve done to our environment and health, including limiting access to clean air and water. While the immediate dispute is climate-related, the stakes are far broader: A bad decision could make it harder for states and localities to hold corporations accountable when they mislead the public or cause harm.

Nielsen v. Watanabe may further restrict the power of individuals to sue for damages when federal officers violate the Constitution. And Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgens center on the constitutionality of assault weapons bans, which have been proven for years to save lives from gun violence.

There are just a few examples of the many concerning cases the Court has already taken up this term.

Alliance for Justice President Rachel Rossi issued the following statement:

“This year, the Supreme Court is signaling a renewed penchant for reopening questions about our rights that have already been answered. We know that voter ID requirements limit access to the polls, yet the Court seems prepared to further erode the power to vote. We know fossil fuels have harmed our planet and communities and assault weapons endanger our lives, but the Court appears poised to eliminate the power to create safeguards against them. We’ve seen the harm done when religion is disingenuously used to justify discrimination, but the Court seems ready to yet again use this pretext to carve out exceptions that will harm LGBTQ+ people.

“This Court’s partisan, political majority is as agenda-driven as ever, but there is an answer to what we can do about it. We have to seize the growing momentum for comprehensive Court reform that can rein in the Court’s excesses and rebalance it with justices committed to equality for all. The people are watching: However the Court abuses its power this term will only strengthen our resolve to restructure it to finally be fair, independent, and just.”