The Supreme Court is set to begin its new term on Monday, tackling cases with potential implications for religious freedom, gun rights, immigration, and the relationship between state and federal powers.
Last term focused heavily on significant issues regarding presidential authority, such as Donald Trump’s ability to impose tariffs and make changes to birthright citizenship. This term, however, features a broader array of cases involving individual rights and federalism.
“There are a few cases regarding religious freedom,” noted Carrie Severino, president of JCN. “We also have cases that deal with state versus federal preemption, but I’m not entirely certain there’s a clear overarching theme connecting them all.”
A key case to watch is Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, which examines if Colorado officials can pursue damages from major oil companies, like Suncor and ExxonMobil, for climate-related damages, or if federal law preempts such actions.
Adam White, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, expressed concerns about the case, indicating that if Colorado succeeds in its nuisance claims against these companies, it could reshape operations beyond just Colorado, prompting questions about the reach of Colorado courts.
Suncor and ExxonMobil argue the Clean Air Act grants federal control over emissions, which should protect them from state-level liability for activities outside Colorado. Conversely, the state asserts its right to seek damages under its laws, suggesting that the Clean Air Act does not interfere with state authority.
The Court will ultimately decide if federal law obstructs Boulder’s climate lawsuit and whether they can hear it at all. Severino referred to this case as a vehicle for “climate lawfare activists” aiming to impose regulations on carbon emissions.
“If the court perceives this as an attempt to manipulate one jurisdiction’s laws to impose regulations beyond its borders, they might be quite hesitant about this claim,” Severino said. “Conversely, if they see this as Colorado trying to legislate on a global scale regarding these energy companies, they may conclude it falls within federal jurisdiction, rather than a single state’s.” This case will be among the first to be heard this term.
Another significant case involves an Arizona law concerning voter registration, which mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for some registrants. Those without documentation may be classified as “federal-only” voters, thus able to participate in federal elections while being excluded from state and local votes. The case questions whether the National Voter Registration Act allows Arizona to impose additional voter requirements.
The Court is also set to examine major issues surrounding gun rights and religious freedom, determining how far states can go in curtailing these liberties.
Colorado is featured again with St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a case focused on whether the state can exclude Catholic preschools from its universal preschool program due to religious policies that conflict with state nondiscrimination regulations regarding LGBTQ+ students. The Catholic schools argue this would force them to compromise their beliefs to receive the same funding available to others.
Severino mentioned that the schools’ refusal to align with state policies, such as allowing children to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity, is a focal point. Historically, the Supreme Court has favored religious organizations in similar scenarios, preventing states from excluding them from available benefits.
Amanda Shanor, an attorney involved in earlier cases regarding cake shops and weddings, highlighted potential concerns that this case might undermine anti-discrimination protections by broadening the circumstances under which businesses can refuse service based on identity.
In Illinois and Connecticut, similar cases are poised to challenge state laws impacting specific semi-automatic firearms, with their fates resting in the hands of the Supreme Court. Severino pointed out that this term is particularly crucial as the Court evaluates how states may limit certain weapons, especially popular options like the AR-15.
Though presidential power may not dominate the discussion this term, the Court will still address limitations concerning Trump’s immigration policies, specifically regarding deportations to countries not listed in removal orders.
In total, the Supreme Court is gearing up to hear over two dozen cases this term, with the possibility of taking on more as the sessions unfold.
