The Supreme Court is ready to take on climate, immigration and gun rights. Here are 5 cases to watch out for

When the U.S. Supreme Court returns Monday, the justices will begin a new term that includes cases on climate change, gun rights, immigration and religious freedom.

The high court has agreed to hear 30 cases so far, after a summer that PBS News Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe called “not much of a ‘playtime’.”

Historically, Supreme Court justices experience a quiet summer after finishing releasing decisions from the previous term in June. They then decide which cases they will hear during the new term.

But a growing wave of requests to the emergency docket, also known as the “shadow docket,” means judges must quickly issue temporary rulings while cases move through the lower court system. These decisions are generally unsigned and do not provide detailed explanations.

WATCH: New book ‘Shadow Docket’ explores the Supreme Court’s growing influence on American law

“Compared to previous years, they hear relatively few cases on the ‘merits,’ and much of their work takes place on the emergency docket, which, while theoretically ‘temporary,’ can have long-term effects for the litigants involved,” Howe said.

In September, for example, the high court temporarily blocked Trump’s effort to restrict mail-in voting in an emergency ruling.

The Supreme Court is likely to add more cases to be argued in the coming months, as it has in the past, such as in April 2025, when the Court announced it would hear a case on nationwide injunctions related to the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship policy.

That term, Howe said, the Supreme Court could still add cases related to the military’s ban on transgender service members or President Donald Trump’s appeal of his defamation case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll.

Here’s a look at five important cases coming before the Supreme Court this quarter.

Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder County Commissioners: Can businesses be held responsible for climate change?

The first case to come before the Supreme Court this legislature concerns whether state and local governments can sue energy companies for their role in climate change.

The county and city governments of Boulder, Colorado, sued Suncor and Exxon Mobil in 2018, alleging the companies knew they were contributing to climate change and causing harm to the county, city and its residents. Boulder is seeking monetary compensation from the companies.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on October 5. Listen to our video player above.

There are dozens of similar cases across the country where state and local municipalities are seeking billions of dollars in damages, Howe said.

LEARN MORE: Should big oil companies pay for climate damage? Some cities and states say yes

The Supreme Court will now decide whether Boulder can sue energy companies under state law. The companies say the lawsuits are barred by federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Lower courts ruled that the cases belong in state, not federal, courts, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case on September 28.

Viramontes v. Cook County: Can states ban AR-15s?

In December, the court will hear arguments on the legality of a local Illinois law banning the possession, sale and transfer of assault weapons, including AR-15s.

County residents and gun rights organizations sued the locality in 2021, claiming the law infringed on their constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the Second and 14th Amendments give citizens the right to own semi-automatic weapons.

LEARN MORE: Supreme Court to consider whether AR-15 bans violate the Second Amendment

The importance of the case goes beyond whether semi-automatic weapons can be banned, David French, an attorney and New York Times columnist, said at a SCOTUSblog event.

“The vast majority of jurisdictions in the United States, even if you are able to ban an AR-15, do not ban AR-15s,” French said. “The democratic process has kind of worked its way into the area of ​​gun control.”

This case focuses on whether the court will further clarify its jurisprudence on the Second Amendment, “which is still in its infancy,” Howe said.

“The Supreme Court has been largely silent on the scope and meaning of the Second Amendment” for more than 200 years, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Department of Homeland Security vs. DVD: Can immigrants be deported to countries where they have no ties?

With this case, the Supreme Court will rule on the Trump administration’s policy of deporting immigrants to countries other than their own.

The court initially took the case under its emergency docket and issued a ruling on September 29 allowing Trump to continue deportations to third countries.

LEARN MORE: Supreme Court allows Trump to continue deporting people to third countries while justices consider policy

In the coming months, she will hear arguments and rule on the legality of the policy and whether immigrants have the right to object before deportation.

Trump has sent thousands of immigrants to countries they have no ties to, where they are denied due process and face human rights abuses, according to advocacy organizations.

Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha: Should immigrants be detained without a bail hearing?

The Supreme Court on Thursday added a new case on the legality of mandatory immigrant detention under the Trump administration.

Trump implemented a policy requiring all immigrants arrested in the United States to be detained without the right to a bond hearing. The administration says a 1996 law requires it, even though other administrations have not interpreted the law that way.

LEARN MORE: Supreme Court Allows Review of Trump Administration’s Mandatory Immigrant Detention Policy

Historically, migrant detention has been reserved for people arrested at the border or those who pose a security risk. People who had lived in the United States for years were eligible for bond hearings where they could ask an immigration judge not to detain them while their case played out.

In 2025, the Trump administration arrested Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States since 2016. An immigration judge ruled his detention was mandatory despite him having no criminal convictions.

“Detaining him without the possibility of bail serves no other purpose than to punish him because he is an immigrant, and has been soundly rejected by every court that has considered his case,” Paul Dwyer, da Cunha’s lawyer, said in a statement.

St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy: Can states deny public funding to religious schools that discriminate against same-sex couples?

Colorado implemented a universal preschool program in 2022 that provides state funds to public and private preschools. To be eligible for these funds, schools must sign a nondiscrimination agreement requiring them to accept students regardless of their or their family’s religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.

LEARN MORE: Supreme Court to hear religious preschools challenging their exclusion from taxpayer-funded program

A Catholic preschool claims the state discriminates against its religious freedom under the First Amendment because the school is ineligible for funds due to its policy excluding children of same-sex couples from enrolling.

“This is the latest in a series of cases involving the availability of public funds to religious institutions,” Howe said.

The high court ruled in June 2025 that parents could remove their children from public school classes if they had religious objections to lessons using LGBTQ books. In 2022, judges blocked a Maine law that paid tuition for students who did not have public schools in their district, but only if they attended secular private schools.