--- title: "Supreme Court Opens Term With Climate Case, Then Religion, Guns and Immigration" description: "The first argument on Monday tests whether state and local governments can sue energy companies over fossil fuel deception" author: "rews desk" published: 2026-10-03T09:00:00Z modified: 2026-10-03T21:00:03Z url: https://rews.cc/a/supreme-court-opens-term-with-climate-case-then-religion-gun-9d47b8 language: en tags: ["supreme-court", "religion", "guns", "climate", "immigration", "us"] publisher: "Rews (https://rews.cc)" --- # Supreme Court Opens Term With Climate Case, Then Religion, Guns and Immigration *The first argument on Monday tests whether state and local governments can sue energy companies over fossil fuel deception* By rews desk · October 3, 2026 · https://rews.cc/a/supreme-court-opens-term-with-climate-case-then-religion-gun-9d47b8 ## In brief - The Supreme Court opens its term Monday with a case on whether state and local governments can sue energy companies over climate deception - A Colorado case asks whether a Catholic preschool must get taxpayer funding despite refusing to admit LGBTQ students - December arguments will cover bans on semi-automatic weapons and the administration’s third-country deportation policy - Ten Commandments classroom laws in four states and fights over Harvard grants and law firms wait in the wings The Supreme Court formally opens its new term on Monday with arguments on whether state and local governments can sue energy companies for deceiving the public about fossil fuels, the first case in a docket stacked with religion, guns and immigration disputes. The climate case, [Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County](https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/10/supreme-court-to-consider-whether-suit-may-go-forward-seeking-to-hold-energy-companies-liable-fo/), tests whether such suits can proceed at all. “The theory is that the energy company defendants deceived the public for many years,” said Deepak Gupta, who teaches at Harvard Law School, telling the public “the opposite of what the company’s own scientists knew.” Most court observers see it as an uphill fight for the environmental side. The term begins against a changed institution. Fully briefed and argued cases have dropped sharply over the years while emergency appeals have ballooned under the Trump administration. “So now we have twice as many full court rulings on emergency applications as we have on the merits docket,” said Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor, calling it “a very new phenomenon.” Emergency rulings come quickly, with little briefing, no oral arguments and often little explanation, and lower-court judges, liberal and conservative alike, complain they get too little guidance. The administration has also taken the once-rare step of leapfrogging appellate courts it views as hostile. The religion case, from Colorado, may carry the widest effects. St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton wants the funding guaranteed by the state’s universal preschool law but will not admit LGBTQ students or children with gay or trans parents, saying such admissions would violate its free exercise of religion. The state says funding the school would violate its anti-discrimination law. The justices deadlocked 4-4 on a similar question last term, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused; she is taking part this time, and the conservative majority has repeatedly granted religious exemptions from generally applicable laws. “It’s literally the opposite of what the law was not that long ago, and it’s just a complete shift,” said Frank Ravitch, a Michigan State University law professor. In December the court will hear whether state and local bans on semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 violate the Second Amendment. Don Verrilli Jr., a former solicitor general, framed the tension: the rifle “can deliver upwards of 100 bullets per minute” unmodified and 500 with enhancements, yet millions of Americans own one, “and it would be quite disruptive to suggest all these Americans ... would be dispossessed of their weapons.” Erin Murphy, a lawyer for gun owners, said the “single most important question is who gets to decide what guns you have.” Also in December, the justices will hear the administration’s defense of deporting migrants to so-called third countries when their home countries refuse them. Since Mr. Trump began his second term, thousands have been sent to countries where they have no connections, may not speak the language and have often been jailed and, allegedly, tortured; the court has twice blocked lower-court rulings against the policy. A second immigration case challenges the detention of undocumented immigrants without bond hearings, no matter how long they have lived in the United States. Other cases wait in the wings. Four states, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Alabama, have passed laws requiring the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, in direct conflict with the court’s 1980 precedent, and a split among lower courts all but guarantees review. Another potential case asks whether states can regulate Kalshi, the $40 billion prediction market. And there are disputes the administration has slow-walked for close to two years after losing quickly below: the attempt to strip Harvard University of medical research grants and the campaign against law firms Mr. Trump views as hostile. “They don’t want to take up cases that they’re going to lose, but on the other hand, they have a boss who wants everything taken up there,” said Pam Karlan, a Stanford University law professor. Election litigation may yet overtake all of it. Still, Mr. Vladeck cautioned against reading the docket as the whole story: “The real story of the upcoming term hasn’t been written yet because what we’re going to look back on as the biggest cases of the term … are not on the docket yet.”