Preview of Supreme Court 2026-2027 Term | Bloomberg Law

Bloomberg Law presents an in-depth preview of the 2026-2027 Supreme Court term with expert analysis from Gregory Garrett, former U.S. Solicitor General and partner at Latham & Watkins. The conversation covers numerous high-stakes cases with significant social and legal implications.

The first major case concerns Boulder, Colorado's climate liability lawsuit against oil companies ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy. The city alleges that fossil fuel production and distribution contributed to global climate change, causing wildfires and property damage. The case presents two questions: whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction (since the Colorado Supreme Court only ruled on the preemption defense), and whether state nuisance law is preempted by federal law. Garrett notes that this case is unusual because conservative judges might resort to constitutional "shadows and emanations" while liberal judges could insist on textual analysis. The case became more interesting when Justice Alito recused himself, leaving an eight-person court where Boulder needs only one conservative vote to win on a 4-4 tie.

The St. Mary's Catholic Parish case involves Colorado's universal early childhood education program that provides funding for public or private preschools but requires non-discrimination policies. Catholic parishes sued, claiming the requirement violates their religious rights regarding same-sex marriage and gender issues. They argue Colorado grants exemptions to some schools while denying them to religious schools. Garrett predicts religious rights plaintiffs will likely succeed, noting that conservative justices have shown strong support for overturning or limiting the Smith decision, and that recent precedent like Carson v. Makin favors religious liberty claims.

A case from Florida questions whether the Sixth Amendment requires a 12-person jury or allows six-person juries. Chiropractor Hamad Khan was convicted by a six-person jury and appeals based on the 2020 Ramos decision, which ruled that jury verdicts must be unanimous as they were in 1791. Khan argues that 12-person juries were also the 1791 standard. The case could affect thousands of pending verdicts in Florida and five other states using six-person juries. Garrett predicts the Court will likely overturn the Williams v. Florida precedent that allowed six-person juries, though liberal justices may be reluctant to overturn precedent despite sympathizing with the defendant.

The Court will consider constitutional challenges to bans on semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15. Connecticut and other states passed such bans, with states arguing they regulate historically dangerous and unusual weapons. Plaintiffs counter that AR-15s are widely used and thus protected by the Second Amendment under the Court's new originalist framework focusing on history and tradition. Garrett suggests the outcome may depend on Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, while noting that lower courts have mostly upheld assault weapon bans but conservative justices have signaled receptivity to Second Amendment challenges.

A Washington state case addresses whether parents have legal standing to challenge laws allowing youth shelters to provide gender-affirming care to runaway minors without parental notification. The lower courts dismissed on standing grounds. Garrett notes this raises the important issue of legal personality and standing, which has become crucial in parental challenges to school and state gender policies. He suggests the state faces an unequal battle given the Court's recent pattern in LGBTQ+ rights cases.

A peculiar case involves an 82-year-old Alaskan pilot, Ken Juppi, whose $95,000 plane was seized after he inadvertently transported a case of beer to a dry village—a minor misdemeanor. Juppi argues the seizure violates the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause. The trial court agreed, but Alaska's Supreme Court upheld the seizure. Garrett notes the compelling facts put the state in a difficult position, and that civil forfeiture has become a significant issue with governments collecting billions through such actions. Multiple human rights groups have filed amicus briefs to strengthen Eighth Amendment restrictions on civil forfeitures.

A Title IX case questions whether the statute's prohibition on sex discrimination extends to employment discrimination by educational employees, not just students. An art professor and women's basketball coach sued Georgia universities. The lower courts ruled Title IX does not grant employment discrimination claims, but the Supreme Court accepted the case. Garrett explains that plaintiffs face obstacles because the current Court is reluctant to imply private rights of action and because Congress created Title VII specifically for employment discrimination just months before passing Title IX. He predicts the Court will likely rule against the plaintiffs based on textual analysis.

Several immigration cases will be heard, including one addressing whether immigrants who lost asylum status can apply for permanent residency. Non-citizens from Egypt and Guatemala were granted asylum but lost it after criminal convictions. The question is whether "any alien granted asylum" means anyone ever granted asylum or only those currently holding that status. Garrett notes this is a technical statutory interpretation question that even textualist judges may approach seriously. Another immigration case, granted emergency relief this week, addresses whether the Trump administration can deport immigrants to third countries not specified in their deportation orders without prior notice or opportunity to be heard. Garrett indicates the Court's emergency ruling suggests government support and predicts the conservative majority will likely defer to presidential authority on immigration despite disturbing reports of violent removals.

Throughout the discussion, Garrett emphasizes how the current Court's originalist and textualist approaches differ from previous eras, how Justice Alito's recusal affects the climate case, and how various cases present opportunities for the conservative majority to advance their jurisprudential views while sometimes creating unexpected alignments on particular issues.