Supreme Court Begins Term with Key Arguments, Denies Hundreds of Cases

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's consideration of cases related to federal environmental laws, disability benefits, and retirement funds could have direct implications for Georgia residents and state agencies, including potential future cases affecting its key industries.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court commenced its 2026-27 term on Monday, hearing oral arguments in two cases and issuing a list denying review in hundreds of others from its September 28 'long conference.' One case heard by the justices was *Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County*, which examines whether a Colorado state court lawsuit seeking to hold energy companies responsible for climate change can proceed, or if federal law precludes such claims. The court also heard *Johnson v. United States Congress*, addressing whether a federal district court can review a constitutional challenge to a law limiting disability benefits for incarcerated veterans. The court's denials included a high-profile dispute concerning whether schools can prohibit students from wearing 'Let’s Go Brandon' sweatshirts, a case regarding Second Amendment rights for convicted felons, and two challenges related to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The justices also requested the U.S. solicitor general's opinion on several disputes and remanded others to lower courts for reconsideration in light of previous rulings. On Tuesday, the court will hear arguments in *Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee*, a case under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act concerning claims of imprudent investment of employees’ retirement funds. On Wednesday, the arguments will focus on *Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guåhan*, a technical dispute regarding federal environmental laws and the U.S. Air Force's permit renewal for munitions disposal on a Guam beach. Separately, the Trump administration on September 28 brought *Trump v. Kingdom* to the interim docket, a dispute over the Federal Bureau of Prisons' policy on healthcare and accommodations for transgender inmates. The court has requested a response from the challengers by Thursday. In other developments, an emergency application to block the Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery merger was filed Monday and subsequently denied by Justice Elena Kagan. Consumers argued that irreparable harm would occur if the deal closed, stating that later relief could not restore lost competition. The merger was scheduled to close Tuesday. Congressional Democrats have expressed views on a potential Supreme Court vacancy during a Trump presidency. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated a desire to prevent Trump from appointing what he termed 'MAGA justices.' Senator Richard Blumenthal stated that confirmation of a Trump-appointed justice by a Democratic-led Senate was unlikely, citing past actions by former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Senator Ruben Gallego echoed this sentiment, suggesting a similar approach to McConnell's past actions. The upcoming midterm elections could influence the court's term, according to *The New York Times*. The court addressed election-related disputes earlier this summer, including challenges to voting methods and congressional maps. The article noted potential for future election challenges to reach the court. The court also denied review in a challenge by a former Pennsylvania judge, Mark Cohen, regarding his suspension for partisan Facebook posts. Cohen's appeal argued that his posts constituted protected speech under the First Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito was profiled by CBS News, which explored the idea of the current court being referred to as the 'Alito court.' Alito discussed his legal positions and the impact of the court's 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage, noting the reliance on that decision. In a column for *National Review*, Ryan J. Owens discussed public criticism among Supreme Court justices, urging caution to protect the court's perceived legitimacy. Owens cited Justice Sonia Sotomayor's recent comments on her colleagues' understanding of the First Amendment as an example of such criticism.