The Supreme Court will kick off its new term in October with seven cases over its first two weeks back on the bench, tackling disputes over climate change liability, immigration detention, veterans’ benefits, environmental regulation, federal sentencing and digital privacy.
The court recently released its October oral argument calendar, revealing a docket of seven cases between October 5-14. Among the highest-profile disputes are a lawsuit seeking to hold energy companies liable for climate change-related harms, a challenge involving prolonged immigration detention without bond hearings, and a case that could clarify the scope of federal digital privacy protections.
The Supreme Court’s new term follows a closely watched 2025-26 session in which the 6-3 conservative-majority court issued major rulings on immigration and executive power, including a high-profile case involving President Donald Trump’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship, which the court ruled against.
U.S.
Here’s the docket for oral arguments before the court in October:
- Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) v. Commissioners of Boulder County
- Johnson v. United States Congress
- Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee
- Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan
- Beaird v. United States
- Genalo v. Black
- Salazar v. Paramount Global
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) v. Commissioners of Boulder County
The first case before the court is Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) v. Commissioners of Boulder County on October 5.
A Colorado county is seeking damages from major oil and gas companies, alleging under state law that their production, marketing, and promotion of fossil fuels contributed to climate-related harms while misleading the public about the associated risks.
The justices will consider whether federal law precludes those state-law claims because they seek relief for injuries arising from interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions. The decision could establish whether state and local governments may pursue similar lawsuits under state law.
The case could have broad implications for climate liability lawsuits nationwide, with Columbia Law School professor Michael Gerrard telling Newsweek that it “may determine the fate of the more than two dozen lawsuits now pending against the major fossil fuel companies, brought mostly by states, counties and cities.”
Gerrard continued, “If Boulder wins, several of these cases will roar forward, and some may go to trial. If Suncor wins, the cases may screech to a halt. But it’s also possible that the Supreme Court will rule that the case is too early to decide, and leave everything uncertain.”
Johnson v. United States Congress
The second case scheduled for argument that day, Johnson v. United States Congress, centers on veterans’ benefits and access to federal courts. Floyd Johnson, a U.S. Army veteran, received disability benefits for service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder while serving a prison sentence. The Veterans Benefits Administration later reduced those payments under a federal law that limits disability compensation for veterans incarcerated following felony convictions.
The Supreme Court will consider whether federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to laws governing veterans’ benefits or whether Congress required those claims to proceed exclusively through the Department of Veterans Affairs’ specialized review process. The ruling could clarify the scope of that review system and determine where veterans may bring constitutional challenges related to their benefits.
Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee
In Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, the Supreme Court will consider what participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans must allege to pursue fiduciary-duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
The case centers on allegations by Winston R. Anderson, a participant in two Intel retirement plans, who contends that changes made to the plans’ investment structure after the 2008 financial crisis resulted in years of weaker performance and that plan fiduciaries failed to act prudently.
Lower courts dismissed Anderson’s lawsuit, concluding that he had not identified a meaningful benchmark showing the investment strategy performed unreasonably compared with alternative approaches and had not adequately supported claims that fiduciaries acted under a conflict of interest.
The Supreme Court justices’ decision could clarify the standards plaintiffs must meet when bringing ERISA fiduciary-duty claims based on a fund’s alleged underperformance.
Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan
In Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan, the Supreme Court will consider a dispute over environmental reviews and federal permitting in Guam. The case arises from a challenge by Prutehi Guahan, an environmental organization that opposed the Air Force’s efforts to renew a permit for a facility used to dispose of unexploded military ordnance and other munitions in Guam.
The Air Force argues that submitting a permit-renewal application is not a “final agency action” that can be challenged, while the environmental group contends the agency should have completed an environmental impact statement before filing the application.
The justices will also consider whether the Air Force was required to prepare an environmental impact statement before submitting the permit application.
The ruling could clarify when federal agencies may be sued over environmental permitting decisions.
Beaird v. United States
The Supreme Court will open its second week with Beaird v. United States, a case that asks whether courts should continue following a 1993 precedent directing judges to give substantial weight to commentary accompanying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
Bradley Beaird, a federal inmate, argues that courts have treated the Sentencing Commission’s commentary as effectively binding even when it adds requirements or enhancements not found in the guidelines’ text.
The justices’ decision could clarify how much legal authority that commentary carries, potentially affecting future federal sentencing disputes involving guideline enhancements and interpretations.
Genalo v. Black
In Genalo v. Black, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutional limits of prolonged immigration detention. The case was brought by a noncitizen who argued that his detention during removal proceedings became so lengthy that the Due Process Clause required the government to provide a bond hearing to determine whether his continued detention was justified.
The justices will decide whether prolonged detention without such a hearing violates due process and, if so, what standard should govern those proceedings. They will also consider whether the case became moot before reaching the Supreme Court. The decision could clarify the constitutional protections available to noncitizens held for extended periods while their immigration cases remain pending.
The case dates back to October 2020, when Keisy G.M. was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. G.M. was held in detention for about 21 months, nearly two years, and while he appeared at court hearings, he never received a bond hearing. He was released from custody in 2022.
Salazar v. Paramount Global
The Supreme Court will close its second week of arguments with Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case that could clarify how a federal video privacy law applies to modern streaming platforms and online data collection.
The dispute centers on the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act. The justices will consider how the law applies to digital streaming services and whether companies violate the statute by sharing users’ viewing information with third parties through online tracking technologies.
The ruling could shape how media companies collect, use and disclose consumers’ viewing data and influence future privacy litigation involving streaming platforms and other digital services.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Jason Lemon and Sam Wilson.
