Supreme Court ready to tackle climate, immigration and gun rights. Here are 5 cases to watch

When the U.S. Supreme Court returns Monday, the justices will kick off a new term featuring cases on climate change, gun rights, immigration and religious liberty.

The high court has agreed so far to hear 30 cases, after a summer that PBS News Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe called not "much of a 'recess.'"

Historically, Supreme Court justices have a quiet summer after they've finished publishing the previous term's decisions in June. They then decide which cases they'll hear in the new term.

But a rising surge of petitions to the emergency docket, also known as the "shadow docket," mean justices must quickly issue temporary decisions while cases make their way through the lower court system. These decisions are usually unsigned and don't provide extensive explanations.

WATCH: New book 'Shadow Docket' explores Supreme Court's growing influence on American law

"Compared with past years, they hear relatively few cases on the 'merits,' and a lot of their work takes place on the emergency docket, which, although theoretically 'temporary,' can have long-term effects for the litigants involved," Howe said.

In September, for example, the high court temporarily blocked Trump's effort to restrict mail-in voting in an emergency docket ruling.

The Supreme Court is likely to add more cases for arguments in the coming months, as it has in the past, such as in April 2025, when the court announced it would hear a case on nationwide injunctions related to the Trump administration's birthright citizenship policy.

This term, Howe said, the Supreme Court could still add cases related to the military's ban on transgender members or President Donald Trump's appeal on his defamation case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll.

Here's a look at five significant cases going before the Supreme Court this term.

Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County: Can corporations be held liable for climate change?

The first case to go before the Supreme Court this term deals with whether state and local governments can sue energy companies over their role in climate change.

The county and city governments of Boulder, Colorado, sued Suncor and Exxon Mobil in 2018, alleging the companies knew they were contributing to climate change and caused harm to the county, city and its residents. Boulder is seeking monetary compensation from the companies.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments Oct. 5. Listen in our video player above.

There are dozens of similar cases around the country where state and local municipalities are seeking billions of dollars in damages, Howe said.

READ MORE: Should big oil pay for climate damage? Some cities and states say yes

The Supreme Court will now decide whether Boulder can sue the energy companies under state law. The companies say the suits are barred by federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Lower courts have ruled that the cases belong in state, not federal courts, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case on Sept. 28.

Viramontes v. Cook County: Can states implement bans on AR-15s?

In December, the court will hear arguments over the legality of a local Illinois law banning possession, sale and transfer of assault weapons, including AR-15s.

County residents and gun rights organizations sued the locality in 2021, saying the law infringed upon their constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the Second and 14th Amendments give people the right to possess semiautomatic weapons.

READ MORE: Supreme Court will consider whether AR-15 bans violate the Second Amendment

The case's importance transcends whether semiautomatic weapons can be banned, David French, a lawyer and New York Times columnist, said during a SCOTUSblog event.

"The vast majority of jurisdictions in the United States, even if you're able to ban an AR-15, don't ban AR-15s," French said. "The democratic process has kind of worked its way through in the gun control arena."

This case is about whether the court will further clarify its jurisprudence on the Second Amendment, "which is still in its relative infancy," Howe said.

"The Supreme Court has remained largely silent on the scope and meaning of the Second Amendment" for more than 200 years, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.: Can immigrants be deported to countries where they have no ties?

With this case, the Supreme Court will weigh in on the Trump administration's policy to deport immigrants to countries other than their own.

The court originally took the case up as part of its emergency docket and issued a ruling on Sept. 29 allowing Trump to continue third-country deportations.

READ MORE: Supreme Court lets Trump continue deporting people to 3rd countries while justices consider policy

In the coming months it will hear arguments and rule on the legality of the policy and whether immigrants have the right to object before deportation.

Trump has sent thousands of immigrants to countries to which they have no ties, where they are denied due process and face human rights abuses, according to advocacy organizations.

Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha: Are immigrants required to be detained without bond hearings?

The Supreme Court on Thursday added a new case on the legality of mandatory immigration detention under the Trump administration.

Trump implemented a policy requiring all immigrants who are arrested inside the U.S. to be detained without the right to a bond hearing. The administration says a 1996 law requires this, even though other administrations have not interpreted the law that way.

READ MORE: Supreme Court grants review of Trump administration's mandatory detention policy for immigrants

Historically, immigration detention has been reserved for people arrested at the border or those who pose a security risk. People who had been living in the U.S. for years were eligible for bond hearings where they could ask an immigration judge not to detain them while their case played out.

In 2025, the Trump administration arrested Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian citizen who had been living in the U.S. since 2016. An immigration judge ruled that his detention was mandatory despite him not having any criminal convictions.

"Detaining him without the possibility of release on bond serves no purpose other than to punish him for being an immigrant, and has been solidly rejected by every court to have considered his case," Paul Dwyer, da Cunha's attorney, said in a statement.

St. Mary's Catholic Parish v. Roy: Can states deny public funding to religious schools discriminating against same-sex couples?

Colorado implemented a universal preschool program in 2022 that provides state funds to public and private preschools. To be eligible for the funds, the schools must sign a nondiscrimination agreement requiring them to accept students regardless of their or their family's religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.

READ MORE: Supreme Court will hear from religious preschools challenging exclusion from taxpayer-funded program

A Catholic preschool claims the state is discriminating against its freedom of religion under the First Amendment because the school does not qualify for funds due to its policy excluding enrollment for the children of same-sex couples.

"This is the latest in a series of cases involving the availability of public funds for religious institutions," Howe said.

The high court ruled in June 2025 that parents could pull children out of public school classes if they have religious objections to lessons that use LGBTQ books. In 2022, justices blocked a Maine law that paid tuition for students who didn't have public schools in their districts, but only if they attended secular private schools.