A new Supreme Court term begins with cases on climate change, immigration and gun rights
The Supreme Court's new term begins Monday with cases on climate change, religious rights and President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration high on the agenda.
about 4 hours ago
The Supreme Court began its new term on Oct. 5, 2026, with cases on religious liberty, climate liability, immigration policy and gun regulation among the disputes on its docket. The term also opens amid debate over the Court’s recent rulings and its relationship with President Donald Trump. 2
In St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, the justices will consider whether Catholic preschools can participate in Colorado’s universal preschool program. The program gives parents funding of up to about $6,000 to choose a public or private preschool, including faith-based schools; Colorado says participating schools must not refuse admission based on a child’s or family’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The Catholic schools say the state’s rules exclude them because of their religious teachings on sex and marriage. The Court is scheduled to hear the case Nov. 3. 2
Another religious-liberty dispute, Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, concerns a Kentucky zoning ordinance that blocked a religious organization from building a Marian shrine on property zoned residential. The nonprofit corporation that owns the church property is bringing the case; the Diocese of Covington and Our Lady of Lourdes Parish are not parties. 2
On the term’s opening day, the Court was scheduled to hear a case brought by Boulder officials seeking to hold oil companies liable for contributing to climate change. It was also set to hear a separate dispute about a law limiting disability benefits for some incarcerated veterans. 2
The justices will consider challenges to Trump administration policies involving deportations to third countries where migrants have no ties, as well as mandatory detention during deportation proceedings. 2
In Viramontes v. Cook County, scheduled for Dec. 2, the Court will review whether local bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles violate the Second Amendment. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops did not take a position on the constitutional question, but urged the Court to recognize both the right of self-defense and the authority of local governments to regulate weapons that pose public-safety risks. 2
The 2025–26 term included rulings against Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship and his sweeping tariff policy, while also allowing the administration to reinstate a policy turning away some asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border and to end temporary deportation protections for eligible Haitian and Syrian immigrants. The Court also upheld state laws requiring student athletes to compete on teams corresponding to their biological sex. 2
Trump criticized justices over rulings he viewed as losses and said he regretted nominating three of them during his first term. Notre Dame law professor Rick Garnett said those justices’ role is to decide legal disputes under the Constitution, not to repay the president who appointed them. 2
A Marquette Law School Poll found the Court’s approval rating fell from 47% in July to 43% in September. In the same survey, 60% of adults said the Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration often or fairly often, while 40% said it did so rarely or never. 2*
Religious liberty and state authority in education
Catholic teaching rejects both an educational monopoly by the state and the idea that the state has no legitimate role in education. Parents have the primary responsibility and right to educate their children; the state serves the common good by supporting education, protecting rights, and supplementing what families and other institutions cannot adequately provide.
The family is the first setting of a child’s education. Parents therefore have a right to choose schools that accord with their convictions and to establish and support schools shaped by those convictions. This right is not unlimited: parental authority must serve the child’s good and remain consistent with moral and divine law.
Educational freedom is more than permission for private schools to exist. Libertatis conscientia says that the state should not merely tolerate them: because they provide a public service, they have a claim to financial assistance. This expresses a principle of fairness—public policy should not make meaningful parental choice available only to families able to pay twice for education.
The state may promote education for the common good, establish schools, and supplement family and Church efforts when these are insufficient. Its authority is therefore real, but it is not the original or exclusive authority over children’s education.
The state may also set appropriate requirements in the public interest. But its role is subsidiary: it should assist and safeguard the educational work of families and other communities, rather than displace them. When the state claims a monopoly or pressures families to use government schools against their convictions or legitimate preferences, it exceeds its proper role.
Religious liberty in this context means that families should not be forced into an educational system that contradicts their conscientious convictions. It also means that pluralism need not require schools to pretend that religious and moral questions do not matter. John Paul II cautioned that enforced philosophical or religious “neutrality” can itself impose a worldview, rather than leave families genuinely free to form their children according to their convictions.
These principles do not, by themselves, settle every policy question—for example, the precise conditions for public funding, curriculum standards, or exemptions. The supplied texts establish the broad Catholic principles: respect parental choice, avoid state monopoly, and let public authority serve the common good without absorbing the proper responsibilities of family and Church.