The U.S. Supreme Court opens a new term in Washington, D.C., facing high-stakes disputes over climate change, gun rights, religion, and immigration, while grappling with intense public scrutiny, emergency shadow docket rulings, and direct political attacks over its recent decisions.
Chief Justice John Roberts and his eight colleagues opened the court’s public session at 10 a.m. EDT as the justices returned to the bench in Washington, D.C. Chief Justice John Roberts, surrounded by his eight colleagues, called the court to order for a term already packed with high-profile disputes that test federal power, environmental policy, and constitutional rights.
Supreme Court Hears Climate Lawsuit
The term’s opening arguments tackled a high-stakes environmental dispute on Monday. Arguments regarding a municipal lawsuit brought by Boulder, Colorado’s city and county governments to hold fossil fuel corporations responsible for climate change mark the beginning of the Supreme Court’s term on Monday, seeking to hold energy companies accountable for global climate change.
County Commissioners of Boulder County is whether federal law prevents local governments from suing energy companies in state court over the marketing and sale of fossil fuels. Lawyers for Exxon Mobil and Suncor warned the court that allowing such lawsuits to proceed could effectively impose a carbon tax and bankrupt the industry. County officials argued that states retain the power to address local harms caused by tortious conduct.
The County Commissioners of Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued Exxon Mobil Corp. His absence raises the prospect of a 4-4 deadlock, which would effectively uphold the ruling from the state court that the companies want the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn. Backed by the administration, the corporate defendants argued that allowing the litigation to continue could prove ruinous for businesses across the country.
Court Reviews Challenges to Semi-Automatic Firearm Bans
In December, the court will review an upcoming case examining whether prohibitions on semi-automatic firearms enacted by municipal and state authorities infringe upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, such as the AR-15. Cook County, presents a Second Amendment challenge to bans on AR-15-style rifles. Commenting on the weight of the case, Georgetown Law scholar Michele Goodwin pointed out that it underscores the high court’s dedication to operationalizing constitutional protections tied to gun ownership and the Second Amendment.
The case centers on whether taxpayers can be required to fund religious schools that enforce nondiscrimination provisions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. Legal scholars noted that the conservative supermajority has dramatically altered First Amendment doctrine over church and state during recent terms. Michigan State University law professor Frank Ravitch observed that the current legal framework is a complete shift and literally the opposite of what the law was not that long ago.
Justices Rely on Emergency Docket
Beyond the merits docket, the court continues to face heavy reliance on its emergency shadow docket. Legal experts pointed out that emergency rulings are issued rapidly without oral arguments or extensive briefing, sometimes overshadowing the regular merits cases. During his second term, President Trump has appealed to the shadow docket more than any other president, and representatives from both the White House and the Department of Justice indicated that this pattern will likely continue.
“So now we have twice as many full court rulings on emergency applications as we have on the merits docket,” Vladeck observes, adding, “That is a very new phenomenon.”
Vladeck, legal commentator via NPR
The Trump administration has achieved significant success on its emergency applications, winning over 70 percent of its shadow docket requests since 2025 on issues ranging from voter citizenship verification rules to executive policy enforcement. At the same time, public tensions have flared.
“These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves.”
President Donald Trump, via Fox News
Meanwhile, the two eldest conservative members of the court, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, continue to anchor the rightward orientation of the bench. Thomas, who has served since 1991, and Alito, who joined in 2006, backed every major Trump administration policy that came before the court last term. political science professor Kevin McMahon noted that both justices appear eager to wield their power rather than step aside, observing that they have been waiting for a long time to be in that position and may even envision themselves serving as a check on a potential future Democratic president beginning in 2029.
Democratic leaders renewed calls for structural changes to the court.
Related reading