Supreme Court: 2026-27 Term First Arguments Tackle Climate, Disability

• The Supreme Court began its 2026-27 term with oral arguments in two cases on Monday, including one on climate change liability and another on disability benefits for incarcerated veterans.
• On Tuesday, the justices heard a case concerning employer investment of retirement funds under ERISA, while later today's argument involves federal environmental laws and munitions disposal in Guam.
• On Monday, the Court denied review in hundreds of cases from its September 28 "long conference," including disputes over student speech, Second Amendment rights for felons, and COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
• A new dispute regarding the Federal Bureau of Prison's policy on healthcare for transgender inmates was added to the interim docket on September 28, with a response due by Thursday.
• Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court was confirmed by the Senate on October 6, 2018.

The Supreme Court has commenced its 2026-27 term, immediately diving into a series of significant oral arguments that will shape various areas of law.

The Supreme Court has commenced its 2026-27 term, immediately diving into a series of significant oral arguments that will shape various areas of law. On Monday, the justices heard two cases, marking the official start of the term's argument calendar. These initial hearings underscore the diverse and complex legal questions awaiting resolution by the nation's highest court.

One of the cases heard on Monday, *Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County*, grapples with the critical question of whether lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies accountable for their alleged contributions to climate change, originally filed in Colorado state court, can proceed. This case directly addresses whether federal law preempts or otherwise bars such claims, presenting a fundamental conflict between state-level litigation and potential federal regulatory authority. The outcome could significantly impact environmental liability and the scope of federal jurisdiction.

Also argued on Monday was *Johnson v. United States Congress*, which examines the authority of a federal district court to consider a constitutional challenge. This particular challenge concerns a law that imposes limits on disability benefits for certain incarcerated veterans, raising important questions about judicial review of legislative acts and the rights of specific veteran populations.

The court's busy schedule continues with additional arguments slated for later in the week. On Tuesday, the justices heard *Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee*, a dispute arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). This case focuses on how to adjudicate claims alleging that employers have made imprudent investment decisions regarding their employees' retirement funds, a matter of considerable importance for corporate fiduciaries and retirees alike.

Later today, the court will consider *Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guåhan*. This highly technical case involves the interplay between two distinct federal environmental statutes. The dispute originated when the U.S. Air Force sought to renew a permit for disposing of munitions on a beach located in northern Guam, highlighting the intricate regulatory landscape surrounding military operations and environmental protection.

Beyond the cases scheduled for oral argument, the Supreme Court also engaged in significant docket management on Monday. The justices denied review in hundreds of cases that had been previously considered during their "long conference" on September 28. This extensive list of denials included several high-profile matters that will now not receive the Court's attention.

Among the cases rejected were a dispute concerning whether schools can prohibit students from wearing sweatshirts emblazoned with the phrase "Let's Go Brandon," a challenge to the Second Amendment rights of individuals with felony convictions, and two separate battles over mandates related to COVID-19 vaccinations. These denials illustrate the Court's selective process in choosing which cases to hear, often leaving lower court rulings as the final word on many contentious issues.

In a separate development, the Trump administration, on September 28, introduced a new dispute to the interim docket. This case centers on the Federal Bureau of Prison's policy regarding healthcare and accommodations for transgender inmates. The Court has since requested that the challengers in this matter submit their response to this request by 4 p.m. EDT on Thursday, indicating ongoing procedural steps before a decision on whether to hear the case.

As the 2026-27 term gets underway, legal observers are keen to understand the potential trajectory of the Court's decisions. The Pacific Legal Foundation is hosting a virtual term preview event on Thursday, offering an opportunity for deeper analysis. Zach Shemtob of SCOTUSblog is scheduled to participate as one of the panelists, providing expert commentary on the cases and trends to watch. The event is set to begin at noon EDT, offering timely insights into the Court's evolving docket and the implications of its early arguments.

Source: Original reporting via SCOTUSblog