Guns, voting, immigration and more: The most important cases the Supreme Court will consider in its new term

The Supreme Court begins its final term Monday with a docket full of high-stakes cases that touch on some of the most controversial issues in American politics, including guns, voting and transgender rights.

This will be the second full term for the nation’s highest court since President Trump returned to the White House. The previous mandate, which ended in June, was rich in landmark decisions in a long list of major casesincluding Trump’s tariffs, birthright citizenship and a list of key immigration decisions.

The justices will likely take up additional cases during the term, but there are already many crucial cases for the court to consider in the coming months.

Here’s a look at the big cases coming before the Supreme Court this quarter and what their possible decisions could mean for the country.

Firearms

Over the past two decades, the Supreme Court has ruled series of decisions which significantly expanded gun rights. He could go even further next term when he examines whether laws banning certain semi-automatic rifleslike the AR-15, violate the Second Amendment.

This category of firearms was banned nationwide for a decade until Congress allowed the law to expire in 2004. Similar bans are currently in effect in a dozen states. Gun rights groups have challenged these lawsarguing that it is unconstitutional for these specific types of firearms to be subject to bans that do not apply to other weapons under the Second Amendment.

Citizen vote

A a dozen states currently require voters to show proof of citizenship – such as a birth certificate or passport – when they register to vote. The Supreme Court will again consider the legality of these requirements, this time as part of a challenge to Arizona’s latest proof of citizenship law in this case. Republican National Committee against Mi Familia Vota. The law is currently blocked by a federal circuit court ruling that called some of its provisions “illegal voter suppression measures.” Republicans asked the court to overturn that decision and allow the requirements to continue in Arizona and elsewhere.

The court’s final decision could have far-reaching implications for voting in the United States. The vote of non-citizens is extraordinarily rare and there are already legal measures in place in every state to ensure that only citizens’ ballots are counted. That hasn’t stopped Republicans from pushing for new laws requiring voters to prove their citizenship. Ballot measures to restrict non-citizen voting will be considered by voters in six states in November. Trump’s signature election bill, the SAVE America Act, would enforce these requirements nationwide.

Some researchers argue that, rather than preventing fraud, these laws create barriers that prevent eligible voters from casting ballots. According to one estimate, up to 21 million people Across the United States, they lack the documents they would need to be able to vote under proof of citizenship requirements.

Transgender Rights

One of the many points of debate surrounding transgender rights in recent years has been the extent of parents’ authority over decisions involving their transgender children. The court will rule on this issue once again this term when it hears a case challenging a Washington law which gives emergency shelter operators the flexibility to not contact parents of runaway transgender youth who are seeking gender-affirming care. A group of parents filed a lawsuit, argue that the law violates their parental rights “to raise their child in accordance with their biological sex.”

The current case is along the same lines as one decided earlier this year, in which judges ruled in favor of parents seeking to block a California law this limits when schools can “introduce” transgender students to their families.

Schools

In 2020, Colorado voters approved a ballot measure to establish universal preschool across the state. Under this program, state funding is only available to private preschools that meet certain “equal opportunity” standards, including a willingness to enroll LGBTQ students. Two Catholic nursery schools sued the statearguing that they were discriminated against on the basis of their religion by being denied state funding for defending their beliefs. The state says there is no discrimination because its rules apply to all schools, whether religiously affiliated or not.

In two similar case Over the past decade, the court has sided with the schools, ruling that states generally cannot exclude religious schools from public programs simply because they are religious.

Immigration

After siding with Trump in a series of immigration-related rulings during his last term, the court agreed to take up three more cases that cut to the heart of the president’s immigration agenda.

The landmark case, which the court agreed to hear just days before the start of the term, involves the Trump administration’s policy of mandatory detention of undocumented immigrants. Historically, migrants facing deportation have had the opportunity to request their release while waiting for their cases to be decided by the courts. Trump changed that policy, forcing tens of thousands of immigrants to remain in detention while awaiting possible deportation. Lower courts are divided on whether it is legal for the administration to uniformly deny detained migrants the right to a bond hearing. From now on, it is the Supreme Court which will have the last word.

A second case concerns Trump’s immigration detention policies for another group of immigrants. The central question is whether migrants with criminal histories, including those who were in the country legally, can be held indefinitely in detention centers or whether they have the right to challenge their detention in court. The case involves two legal permanent residents who were detained for what they argue This was an “unreasonably prolonged” period without a bond hearing. Immigrant detention has become a major source of debate during Trump’s second term, amid reports of unsafe conditions in detention centers and a striking increase of the number of deaths among prisoners.

The third immigration case concerns immigrants who had once granted asylum in the United States, have had this status revoked and now argue that they should be eligible to become legal permanent residents. The government says, and lower courts have so far agreed, that only immigrants with active asylum protection can apply for a green card.

Climate change

In recent years, the Supreme Court has significantly shrunk the government’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in a series of historic decisions. Next term, he will take up another case that could close yet another avenue that municipalities have used to try to combat climate change.

Lawmakers in Boulder, Colorado, oil and gas companies sued for their role in perpetuating climate change. These companies asked the Supreme Court to block the lawsuit. They claim, and the The Trump administration agreesthat only the federal government has the authority to seek these types of damages, because the impacts of climate change are well beyond Boulder’s jurisdiction. Several other cities and some states have filed similar lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry. The court could invalidate them all if it rules in favor of the companies.

Jury trials

The court will decide whether juries in criminal trials must have 12 jurors. It’s already the law in most of the country, but a half-dozen states allow only six juries in some cases. The case involves Hamed Kian, a Florida chiropractor who was convicted of practicing after his license was suspended following allegations of inappropriate contact with patients. Kian’s lawyers say the petit jury violated his constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.