The Supreme Court is set to begin its 2026 term with the same nine justices who have served together for the past five years, despite speculation about possible retirements of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Both justices, aged 78 and 76 respectively, have remained on the bench amid political calculations related to Senate control and presidential nominations.

Before the court adjourned for the summer, it agreed to hear 26 cases during the upcoming term, with one additional case added over the break. This marks roughly half of the anticipated docket, as the court plans to accept further cases until mid-January, aiming to issue decisions by the end of June 2027. In the previous two terms, the court resolved 58 cases involving signed opinions following oral arguments.

Several high-profile cases stand out for the new term, beginning with *Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County*, scheduled for argument on October 5. This case centers on whether energy companies can be held liable under state law for their contributions to climate change. Boulder County and the city of Boulder filed suit against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy affiliates in Colorado state court, seeking damages tied to costs incurred from climate-related events such as wildfires, flooding, and drought. The key legal question focuses on whether federal laws preempt state-level liability claims, with the energy companies contending that the Constitution restricts states’ authority to regulate pollution because of its interstate and international implications. Acceptance of this argument could significantly limit state regulatory powers over pollution.

Another significant case, *Viramontes v. Cook County*, set for December 2, will address whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles. This case revisits and potentially expands upon the Court’s 2008 ruling in *District of Columbia v. Heller*, which affirmed an individual’s right to bear arms but emphasized the restriction of firearms not commonly in use at the time of the Second Amendment’s adoption. The plaintiffs argue for constitutional protection of ownership of AR-15s and similar weapons, frequently cited in mass shootings, while opponents stress the weapon’s modern origins and associated dangers. The current Court’s conservative majority has generally taken a strong stance in favor of gun rights.

The Court will also examine religious freedom claims in *St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy*, to be heard on November 3. This case involves Colorado’s Universal Preschool Program, which provides funding to public, private, and religious preschools conditioned on equal enrollment opportunities that do not discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Two Catholic preschools and the Archdiocese of Denver challenge the program’s requirements, arguing that their religious beliefs compel them to consider these factors in admissions decisions. Federal appeals courts have upheld Colorado’s law based on precedent that generally declines religious exemptions from neutral laws, notably the 1990 decision in *Employment Division v. Smith*. However, conservative justices are signaling potential willingness to reconsider the extent of free exercise protections.

Beyond these matters, the Court is poised to address numerous additional cases, including emergency petitions related to immigration enforcement policies established under the Trump administration. Since Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, the Court maintains a 6-3 conservative majority, a dynamic expected to influence rulings in some of the most contentious issues before the justices this term.