The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, Sept. 29, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) The Supreme Court is seen in … more >

Immigration, religion and AR-15s on Supreme Court’s early docket as justices open new term

by · The Washington Times

God, guns, global warming and immigration dominate the early cases as the Supreme Court kicks off its new term Monday.

The nine justices are poised to decide whether states can ban sales of AR-15s and other popular semiautomatic rifles, rule on the legality of some of the more aggressive tactics the Department of Homeland Security has adopted in its pursuit of mass deportations, test states’ power to police climate change and refine the boundary between church and state.

What is lacking from the docket, however, are blockbuster cases such as last term’s rulings on President Trump’s tariffs, his firings of top agency leaders and his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship.

People were interested in these podcasts

Mr. Trump has asked the justices to intervene in cases over his policies restricting medical care for transgender prisoners and the military, and his ability to deport illegal immigrants to countries other than their home nations.

The justices have so far agreed to hear oral arguments in 27 cases this term, leaving perhaps 30 more slots to be filled.

The term kicks off Monday with a major test of states’ power to punish fossil fuel firms for the impacts of climate change.

SPECIAL COVERAGE: Climate Lawfare: A Court Watch Event

The justices have been asked to decide whether a lawsuit brought by the city of Boulder under Colorado’s tort law can proceed against Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil. The companies say allowing states to meddle in an area that is deeply tied to global markets would trample on Congress’ power to control interstate and foreign commerce.

In November, the justices take up yet another dispute over how far states can go in denying religiously devout institutions — usually private schools — taxpayer benefits available to nonreligious institutions.

Advertisement Advertisement

Colorado has denied St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton access to the state’s universal preschool program because the parish will not sign a nondiscrimination agreement promising to accept students regardless of their — or their families’ — gender identity or sexual orientation.

The state says its law is neutral and applies to any school, not just religious schools, though it has made exceptions to its criteria for some nonreligious schools.

Mark Rienzi, a professor at the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University, speaking at a court preview hosted by the Federalist Society, said the issues should seem familiar because the court has repeatedly dealt with these sorts of cases and regularly has ruled against the states.

In 2020, the court ruled that Montana could not bar religious schools from a tuition tax credit program. In 2022, the justices struck down Maine’s ban on parents using a tuition assistance program to pay for enrollment at religious schools.

SEE ALSO: Climate Lawfare: Senator says it wears down energy firms, but courts are pushing back

Mr. Rienzi said it is time states get the message.

Advertisement Advertisement

“Some governments and courts have a very resistance mentality to the Supreme Court these days. They will not go along until you drag them, specifically, kicking and screaming,” he said.

The justices on Thursday added another religious liberty case to their docket, agreeing to hear a case between a group of Catholic priests who want to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary and the Kentucky courts, which said they did not deserve an exemption from zoning laws.

“Religion, and sort of the intersection between religion and public life, could wind up being a really big theme at the Supreme Court this term,” Amy Howe, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, said during a court preview at the National Constitution Center.

December will bring a big gun rights case, when the justices will hear arguments on whether governments can ban AR-15s and similar rifles — the most popular type of long gun sold.

Advertisement Advertisement

In recent years, the high court has looked at who can be restricted from possessing a gun and where guns can be banned, but this is the first case in years to examine the types of weapons and how they fall under the Second Amendment.

Gun rights advocates have long sought this fight. They see a high court ready to slap down laws in more than 10 states that restrict sales of AR-15s.

“From the founding of this country, the rifle has been a paradigmatic American arm,” David Thompson, the attorney for the challengers, told the court, calling the AR-15 the descendant of the weapons used to overthrow British rule and pioneer the West. “The question can be fairly asked: If the Second Amendment does not protect it, what could it possibly protect?”

Lower courts have resisted the idea, regularly upholding AR-15 bans.

Advertisement Advertisement

Cook County in Illinois, whose law is being challenged, labeled AR-15s as “assault rifles” and called them “the weapon of choice for criminals and terrorists set on quickly massacring innocents.”

Also on the schedule in December is a case over whether Arizona can enforce a law requiring newly registering voters who want to participate in federal elections to prove their citizenship.

The justices also have several cases challenging the procedures the government has used to carry out deportations to so-called third countries when an illegal immigrant’s home nation will not take them back, and on the Homeland Security Department’s authority to detain migrants awaiting deportation hearings.

Other cases on tap for the justices:

Advertisement Advertisement

• Whether states can rely on juries of fewer than 12 persons for criminal cases.

• Whether parents can sue over a Washington state policy that allows shelters to skip notifying parents of runaway juveniles when those children seek medical treatments for gender transition.

• Whether federal agency tribunals can impose substantial fines on their own or whether such cases must be brought in federal court instead.

Contact the author

Stephen Dinan

sdinan@washingtontimes.com

View staff page

Follow author updates Follow Click to follow. Manage followed authors

Story Topics