The Supreme Court begins its new term Monday with Suncor Energy v. Boulder County as the lead case, a dispute over whether Colorado can sue oil companies for climate-related harms under state tort law. The case tests the boundary between state authority and federal regulation of emissions. Suncor and ExxonMobil argue that the Clean Air Act grants the federal government exclusive authority over interstate and international emissions, thereby blocking Colorado’s claims. Colorado contends it is seeking damages under state law and that the Clean Air Act preserves state power to enforce its own statutes. The court must determine if federal law preempts the lawsuit and whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case. Carrie Severino, president of JCN, characterized the litigation as an effort by "climate lawfare activists" to regulate carbon emissions. She suggested the justices may view the suit as an attempt to weaponize one jurisdiction's laws to regulate conduct outside its borders. Adam White, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, noted that if Colorado succeeds, the outcome could affect the operations of Suncor and ExxonMobil far beyond the state's limits.
Colorado also faces a second challenge in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, which examines whether the state can exclude Catholic preschools from its universal preschool program due to religious policies. The state provides funding to private preschools but requires adherence to anti-discrimination rules covering sexual orientation and gender identity. The Catholic schools argue these rules conflict with their religious beliefs regarding same-sex couples and LGBT students. They contend they should not be barred from funding for maintaining these policies. Severino stated that the Supreme Court has historically been favorable to religious organizations in such disputes. However, Amanda Shanor, an attorney who represented a gay couple in a previous Supreme Court case, expressed concern that the ruling could expand exemptions for refusing service based on identity. Shanor distinguished this case from previous rulings by noting the schools seek to exclude families based on status rather than refusing service for specific events.
The court will also address gun rights in cases from Illinois and Connecticut involving state laws that restrict certain semiautomatic firearms. This marks the first time since the Bruen decision that the court will evaluate how states limit particular types of weapons. The justices will assess whether these firearms are in common use and have lawful purposes, potentially deciding if popular AR-15 type rifles are protected by the Second Amendment. Additionally, an Arizona election integrity measure is under review in Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota. The case stems from an Arizona law requiring documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for voter registration and allowing the state to purge noncitizens from rolls. The dispute centers on whether the National Voter Registration Act prevents Arizona from imposing these additional requirements.
While presidential power was a dominant theme in the previous term, this term includes a case weighing the Trump administration’s authority to deport illegal immigrants to third countries not listed in their removal orders. This case is not a direct test of presidential power but focuses on whether federal immigration law grants the administration this specific authority. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear more than two dozen cases and may take on additional matters during the term.