FOLLOW US

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court opened its new term this month with one of the most politically explosive dockets in modern memory: a stack of appeals from President Donald Trump, fresh fights over guns, abortion, immigration and elections, and a looming question about whether the justices will be asked to referee the 2026 midterms.

The court reconvened October 5, on the eve of the November 3 midterm elections. Most of the biggest cases are not expected to be decided before voters go to the polls, but the questions they raise will shape the political debate right up to Election Day.

A Docket Packed With Flashpoints

According to ABC News, the first case scheduled for oral argument involves local governments suing energy companies for damages over alleged harms from fossil fuels. It is the first dispute of its kind to reach the justices, with potentially billions of dollars at stake.

The court will also consider whether states can ban semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15, and whether federal ballots can be denied to voters who do not provide proof of citizenship on state registration forms. Other cases include whether religious schools can be blocked from taxpayer-funded programs when they discriminate against LGBTQ+ families, whether to weigh in on state laws requiring the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms, and whether medical providers who mail abortion pills out of state can be shielded from legal action.

The justices are also set to confront the legal status of prediction-market platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, and two significant immigration questions: the legality of rapid deportations to third countries without a chance to raise fears of persecution, and indefinite detention without bond while deportation proceedings are pending.

Trump's Personal Appeals

Alongside the policy fights, the president is asking the court to help him in several personal legal battles. He wants to invalidate an $83 million civil judgment in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, revive a 2016 campaign conspiracy claim against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, and allow defamation claims against CNN over its 2020 election coverage to proceed.

Whether the court takes up any of those petitions will be closely watched. Each involves private litigation rather than executive power, which makes the justices' decisions on whether to hear them a test of how the court treats the president as a litigant.

A Court That Has Both Helped and Hurt Trump

The court has a 6-justice conservative majority, yet last term it ruled against the administration on several marquee priorities, including global tariffs, birthright citizenship, National Guard deployments to U.S. cities, the removal of a Federal Reserve governor and Postal Service mail-in ballot rules.

On the emergency docket, however, the pattern looks different. One analysis cited by ABC found the president won about nine times in ten when the conservative majority acted on emergency requests. That split has fueled argument on both sides: critics say the court is too deferential to the executive, while the administration's allies point to the high-profile losses as proof of independence.

Justice Elena Kagan has pushed back on claims that the court rubber-stamps the administration, saying, "I think that that is a bad rap." Donald Verrilli, a former Obama-era Solicitor General, put it this way: "it is certainly right it is not a MAGA court." Genevieve Lakier of the University of Chicago Law School said the new term, like the last, "is going to provide fuel to the fire" of the debate over the court's role.

Public Trust Under Strain

That debate plays out against weak public confidence. A Marquette University poll found that most Americans believe the justices are motivated mainly by politics. Irv Gornstein of the Georgetown Law Supreme Court Institute framed the central question starkly: "Will the court continue to hold the line against the president's never-ending assault on the rule of law?"

What It Means for Americans

The practical stakes reach into daily life. A ruling on assault-style weapons bans would determine what gun laws states can enact. A decision on proof-of-citizenship requirements could affect how voters register. Immigration rulings could change how quickly people can be removed from the country and how long they can be detained. A climate-liability decision could open or close the courthouse door to massive damage claims against the energy industry, with implications for consumers and the economy.

Because the court is not expected to decide most of these cases before the midterms, the immediate effect may be rhetorical rather than legal. Candidates in both parties are likely to use the docket to energize voters, while any emergency application tied to the election itself could land on the justices' desks with little notice.

For now, the nine justices begin a term in which nearly every major cultural and political fight in America is waiting for them. How they rule, and how quickly, may determine not only the law but the public's faith in the institution itself.

This report is based on coverage by ABC News and other outlets.