Supreme Court Sets October Argument Calendar, Includes Climate and Immigration Cases

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's consideration of federal preemption over state-level claims related to greenhouse gas emissions could establish precedents affecting South Dakota's agricultural and energy sectors, which are subject to both state and federal environmental regulations. Additionally, rulings on federal laws impacting veterans' benefits and immigration detention could have direct implications for federal policy implementation within the state.

---

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has announced its October 2026 oral argument calendar, which includes seven cases addressing issues such as climate change, immigration detention, and digital privacy. The new term officially begins on the first Monday in October. The justices will open the argument session on Monday, Oct. 5, with *Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) v. Commissioners of Boulder County*. This case involves a lawsuit brought by a Colorado county seeking financial compensation from oil and gas companies. The central questions presented include whether federal law preempts state-level claims seeking relief for alleged damages from interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions, and whether the Supreme Court possesses jurisdiction to hear the case. Later on Oct. 5, the Court will hear *Johnson v. United States Congress*. This case questions whether federal district courts have the authority to consider challenges to the constitutionality of federal laws affecting veterans' benefits. On Oct. 6, the Court will address *Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee*. This case focuses on the pleading standards for claims alleging that a fiduciary violated the duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically regarding fund underperformance. The case of *Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan* is scheduled for Oct. 7. The justices will consider two main points: whether an environmental group can challenge the Air Force's permit renewal application for disposing of unexploded ordnance before Guam's Environmental Protection Agency acts on it, and whether the Air Force was required to submit an environmental impact statement prior to submitting its application. On Oct. 13, the Court will hear *Beaird v. United States*. This case asks whether a 1993 ruling concerning how courts address commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines remains valid law. Also on Oct. 13, the Court will hear *Genalo v. Black*. This case involves questions about immigration detention. The Court will consider if a noncitizen’s detention can become “unreasonably prolonged” to the point of triggering a constitutional right to a bond hearing. It will also examine whether a “clear and convincing evidence” standard applies at such a hearing and whether the case is moot because the noncitizen was released from custody in 2022. The final case on the October calendar, scheduled for Oct. 14, is *Salazar v. Paramount Global*. This digital privacy case concerns the interpretation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Specifically, it asks whether the phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider,” as defined in the Act, refers to all goods or services offered by such a provider, or only to its audiovisual goods or services. Congress enacted this federal law in 1988 after a store provided a list of movies rented by Judge Robert Bork, a former Supreme Court nominee, to a reporter.