The U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes Monday on the eve of the midterm elections <\/a>to begin a new term that will confront a fresh wave of appeals from President Donald Trump<\/a> and the prospect of explosive legal challenges<\/a> to 2026 election results.<\/p>\n The first case for oral argument <\/a>involves climate change and a blockbuster bid by local governments to sue energy companies for financial damages over alleged harms from fossil fuels<\/a> — the first-of-its-kind dispute to reach the justices. Potentially billions of dollars are on the line.<\/p>\n This year the court will also decide whether states can ban semi-automatic weapons<\/a> like the AR-15; deny federal ballots to voters who don\u2019t provide proof of citizenship on state registration forms; and block religious schools <\/a>from taxpayer-funded programs when they discriminate against LGBTQ+ families.<\/p>\n It is also considering whether to weigh in on state laws mandating display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms<\/a>; legal shields for medical providers who mail abortion pills out of state; and, regulation of prediction markets <\/a>like Kalshi and Polymarket.<\/p>\n These cases are not expected to be decided before the midterms in November.<\/p>\n \u201cIs the court a Republican court? Is it resolving disputes in the name of justice or some broader set of principles? I think it\u2019s a very live question,\u201d said Genevieve Lakier, a constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago Law School. \u201cThis term, like the last, is going to provide fuel to the fire of that question.\u201d<\/p>\n The justices will decide the legality of the Trump administration\u2019s rapid deportation of immigrants to third countries<\/a> — without giving them a chance to raise fears of persecution — and the indefinite detention of immigrants awaiting deportation proceedings without a chance for release on bond.<\/p>\n A general view of the Supreme Court., June 18, 2026.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Elizabeth Frantz\/Reuters, FILE<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The president also has personal appeals before the court. He wants the justices to invalidate an $83 million civil judgment <\/a>against him in the E. Jean Carroll defamation suit; revive a conspiracy claim against Hillary Clinton and the DNC from the 2016 campaign; and allow defamation claims against CNN from the 2020 election to go forward.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Supreme Court’s term is, in part, going to involve a lot of election drama,\u201d said William Baude, a prominent conservative law professor at the University of Chicago and member of the Federalist Society. \u201cThe 2026 midterm elections are upon us, and the court has already had several pieces of litigation related to that, and has more to come at any moment.\u201d<\/p>\n A majority of Americans believe that the justices are motivated mainly by politics in their decision-making and that this court — with a 6-justice conservative supermajority — rules often for Trump, a Marquette University poll <\/a>found last month.<\/p>\n But many scholars, and the justices themselves, argue that public perception is not matched by reality.<\/p>\n The court ruled against Trump last term on nearly every major policy priority to reach them, striking down Trump\u2019s sweeping global tariffs program<\/a>, birthright citizenship executive order<\/a>, deployment of National Guard troops<\/a> to U.S. cities, removal of a Federal Reserve governor,<\/a> and implementation of Postal Service mail-in ballot rules.<\/a><\/p>\n On dozens of other matters that reached the court on the emergency docket, however, the conservative majority has been much more deferential to the president. By one analysis, he has won about nine times out of ten.<\/p>\n \u201cI don’t see this as a court that is just like, \u2018We’re just going to rubber stamp what the current administration does.\u2019 You know, quite the opposite,\u201d Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court\u2019s liberal minority, told a judicial conference over the summer. \u201cI think that that is a bad rap.\u201d<\/p>\n Former Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who served in the Obama administration, said the Court has been deliberate in asserting its independence from the president.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s doing so at a time in which there really is a pretty darn serious constitutional clash going on,\u201d Verrilli said last month. \u201cThough, I think it\u2019s certainly right it is not a MAGA court.\u201d<\/p>\n Veteran court watchers note, however, that every term comes with surprises.<\/p>\n \u201cWill the court continue to hold the line against the president\u2019s never-ending assault on the rule of law? Will the court otherwise break down 6-3 in favor of conservative positions?\u201d said Irv Gornstein, executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown Law Center.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"Chicago](\"https:\/\/i.abcnewsfe.com\/a\/6fe9c936-68d5-43ea-916c-72db26fa2d26\/supreme-1-er-260925_1790351593061_hpMain.jpg?w=375 "\\"Chicago")
<\/picture><\/div>\n<\/div>