The Supreme Court opened its 2026–27 term — October Term 2026 — on Monday 5 October 2026, the first Monday in October, as required by federal statute. By 1 October the Court had agreed to hear 29 cases, of which 21 were then scheduled for argument, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica. The term runs until late June or early July 2027. No decision had been issued on 28 October 2026; two cases had been argued. Nothing here predicts how the justices will rule.
The nine cases were selected because each reaches beyond its own parties: state climate lawsuits, a 1988 video-privacy law, public preschool funding conditions, AR-15 bans, proof of citizenship to register, and removal to a third country. A separate explainer on Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota is being prepared; this article summarises that case only, by subject, with no invented link. For official registration information, use your state election office or Vote.gov.
How the term works, in brief
The Court has nine justices. Most cases reach it by a petition for certiorari — a request to review a lower court’s decision — of which it grants only a small share, choosing the questions it will answer. Argument sessions run in two-week sittings from October to April. After argument the justices issue signed decisions, usually by the end of June. A decision can be broad, or narrow — deciding only a jurisdictional or standing question. Several cases below include such a question.
Readers following the 2026 midterm elections should note the timing: the voting case is argued on 8 December, after the 3 November election, so its decision, due by June 2027, will govern future elections, not the 2026 midterms.
The nine cases at a glance
| Case | Argument | Question in one line |
|---|---|---|
| Suncor Energy v. Boulder County | Argued 5 Oct 2026 | Can state-law climate claims against energy companies proceed? |
| Salazar v. Paramount Global | Argued 14 Oct 2026 | Is a newsletter subscriber a “consumer” under video-privacy law? |
| St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy | 3 Nov 2026 | Can Colorado condition preschool funds on non-discrimination? |
| Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards | 10 Nov 2026 | Can the Labor Department hold hearings and collect money in H-2A cases? |
| Wassily v. Blanche | 30 Nov 2026 | Can a former asylee whose asylum was terminated become a permanent resident? |
| Viramontes v. Cook County / Grant v. Higgins | 2 Dec 2026 | Does the Second Amendment protect AR-15-style rifles? |
| International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson | 7 Dec 2026 | Do parents have standing to challenge Washington’s shelter-notification law? |
| Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota | 8 Dec 2026 | Can Arizona require proof of citizenship on its state registration form? |
| Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. | 9 Dec 2026 | What process is owed before removal to a third country? |
1. Suncor Energy v. Boulder County — climate lawsuits in state court
The question. Does federal law preclude state-law claims for injuries allegedly caused by climate change from interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions? The Court also asked whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case at this stage. Boulder sued Suncor and Exxon Mobil in Colorado state court in April 2018, bringing nuisance, trespass, unjust-enrichment, conspiracy and consumer-protection claims, according to Cornell’s Legal Information Institute.
Why it matters. Dozens of similar state and local climate suits are pending. A broad ruling for the companies could end many of them; a ruling for Boulder would let them proceed in state court. A jurisdictional ruling would send the case back without deciding preemption. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself on 28 September, Britannica noted, so eight justices heard the argument on 5 October.
2. Salazar v. Paramount Global — a 1988 privacy law meets the tracking pixel
The question. Under the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, is a person a “consumer” if they subscribe to any goods or services from a video provider, or only audiovisual ones? Michael Salazar subscribed to a free newsletter from 247Sports, a Paramount-owned sports site, and alleged a Meta Pixel tracker sent Facebook his identifier and the videos he watched, without consent, while he was logged into Facebook. Paramount said he was not a consumer because he subscribed to a newsletter, not a video.
Why it matters. The Act was passed after a journalist obtained Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video-rental history. Its modern application is to websites that show videos alongside other content and share viewing data through tracking code. A broad reading would expand who can sue; a narrow reading would keep the Act close to its video-rental origins. No decision had issued by 28 October.
3. St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy — public preschool money and non-discrimination
The question. Does Colorado’s exclusion of a Catholic preschool from its universal preschool programme violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, where the preschool refuses to admit children on grounds including families’ adherence to church teaching on gender and sexuality? Colorado’s programme provides 15 hours a week of free instruction for four-year-olds. Providers must agree not to discriminate on grounds including race, ethnicity, religion, gender and gender identity. Two Catholic parishes challenged that condition.
Why it matters. Public money now flows to private religious schools through preschool and voucher schemes in many states. The case asks whether a state can attach non-discrimination conditions to that money, or whether doing so penalises religious exercise. Argument is scheduled for 3 November 2026.
4. Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards — farmworker enforcement
The question. Does the Department of Labor have power to hold hearings on whether agricultural employers violated the H-2A programme for temporary foreign farmworkers, and collect money from employers found in violation? Britannica frames the question in those terms, citing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
5. Wassily v. Blanche — permanent residence after asylum is terminated
The question. May noncitizens granted asylum because of past persecution or fear of future persecution, but whose asylum was later terminated, be granted permanent residence? The question turns on whether the adjustment statute covers “any alien granted asylum” who continues to be a refugee, even after the grant ended, or only someone who currently holds asylum status. Lower courts have split.
6. Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins — AR-15 bans
The question. Does the right to bear arms, under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, permit possession of AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles? The two cases, consolidated for argument, challenge bans imposed by Cook County, Illinois, and by Connecticut. The Court granted review on 30 June 2026 and scheduled argument for 2 December 2026.
Why it matters. This is the Court’s first direct ruling on whether the Second Amendment protects a widely owned class of semiautomatic rifles, under the history-based test in Bruen (2022). The challengers argue AR-15-platform rifles are in common lawful use; the governments argue they are unusually dangerous. A ruling either way will shape gun law far beyond Illinois and Connecticut. For the legislative context, see the filibuster and the 60-vote Senate rule and the competitive governor races.
7. International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson — parents, shelters and standing
The question. Do parents have standing — the legal right to bring a case in federal court — to challenge a Washington law allowing youth shelters to delay or avoid notifying parents when a runaway child arrives and receives gender-affirming care, if the child does not agree to notification? The Court framed it as whether parents can challenge a law that “deliberately displaces their decision-making role” and impedes parenting as they see best.
Why it matters. This is a standing case first. The lower courts dismissed the challenge without deciding the merits. If the Court finds standing, the case returns for a decision on Washington’s law; if not, the dismissal stands. Washington’s law generally requires shelters to contact parents within 72 hours, with an exception for protected health care services, when the shelter contacts the state child-welfare department instead.
8. Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota — proof of citizenship to register
The question. First, does the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 prevent states from requiring documentary proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, on state registration forms? Second, does it prohibit states from creating a programme, within 90 days of a federal election, to cancel registrations of voters who are not citizens? The case concerns Arizona law. It is summarised here only; a separate dedicated explainer is being prepared, and no link is given here because its URL had not been assigned.
Why it matters. The case decides how far states can go beyond the federal registration form, which asks applicants to attest under penalty of perjury that they are citizens but does not require documents. A ruling for Arizona would let states impose document requirements on their own forms. The 90-day question separately concerns list-maintenance programmes close to an election. Argument is 8 December 2026, after the 3 November midterms. See the Texas Senate race explainer for the election context.
9. Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. — removal to a third country
The question. What process must the government provide before removing a person to a country other than their country of origin — a “third country” — including whether the person must be told where they are being sent and given a chance to say they fear persecution or torture there? The Court will also consider whether the district court had jurisdiction and authority to grant broad, class-wide relief, including vacating the government’s third-country guidance.
Why it matters. Immigration law has long allowed removal to a third country when the home country will not accept a person. The dispute is about notice and the chance to raise a fear claim. On 29 September the Supreme Court granted review, stayed the lower court’s judgment and set argument for 9 December, allowing removals to continue meanwhile. A stay is not a decision on the merits; Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson noted they would have denied it.
What the decisions could — and could not — do
A Supreme Court decision binds lower courts on the question it decides, but it does not write new legislation. Congress can respond to a statutory decision — for example, on the Video Privacy Protection Act or the National Voter Registration Act — by amending the statute, subject to the Senate’s 60-vote cloture rule for most bills. It cannot simply override a constitutional decision, such as one on the Second Amendment or the Free Exercise Clause, except by constitutional amendment or a later Court revisiting the question.
Two further cases show the docket is still moving: Kian v. Florida, on 12-person versus six-person juries for serious felonies, was granted but unscheduled when Britannica’s list was compiled; Genalo v. Black, on bond hearings after prolonged detention, was dismissed on 11 September 2026, according to Britannica. More cases will be granted during the autumn — check supremecourt.gov before relying on any date here.
Frequently asked questions
When will the Supreme Court decide these cases?
Decisions are due by late June or early July 2027. Arguments run from 5 October to 9 December 2026. The most closely watched cases are usually decided in June.
Which case was argued first?
Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, on 5 October 2026. Justice Alito did not participate, so eight justices heard it.
Does the Arizona voting case affect the 2026 midterms?
No. It is argued on 8 December 2026, after the 3 November election. For official registration information, use Vote.gov or your state election office.
Where can I read the Court’s own materials?
On supremecourt.gov: each docket page links the petition, briefs and friend-of-the-court filings, and the argument calendars give the schedule. Same-day audio and transcripts appear under Oral Arguments.
Updated: 28 October 2026. Argument dates and case status are as of this date; check the Court’s argument calendar on supremecourt.gov for changes. No decision had been issued in any of the nine cases when this article was written.
Sources
- Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Major Supreme Court cases from the 2026–27 term” — https://www.britannica.com/topic/Major-Supreme-Court-cases-from-the-2026-27-term
- University of Richmond Law Library (MuseNews), “The Court is (Back) in Session: SCOTUS October Term 2026” — https://create.richmond.edu/lawlibrary/?p=7922
- Cornell Law Institute, Legal Information Institute, “Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County” — https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/25-170
- Quarles, “Supreme Court Weighs Scope of VPPA’s ‘Consumer’ Definition” — https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/publications/supreme-court-weighs-scope-of-vppas-consumer-definition
- Woodhull Freedom Foundation, “Woodhull Watchlist: Supreme Court Term 2026–2027” — https://www.woodhullfoundation.org/woodhull-watchlist-supreme-court-term-2026-2027/