Four cases to watch in the Supreme Court’s next term
While the Supreme Court concluded with opinions on June 30, 2026, work has already begun on the next round of cases to be heard by the justices, starting on October 5, 2026.
As of July 13, 2026, the Supreme Court has already agreed to hear 20 new cases. The justices consider cases at private conferences, where four justices are needed to vote in favor of granting a petition to hear argument in the case.
The first case taken for the Court’s October Term 2026 term was Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, granted on Jan. 16, 2026. The justices also accepted several cases on June 30, 2026, the same day it announced its last three decisions of the prior term.
Among the 20 cases (including one consolidated case) on the fall docket, several deal with high-profile questions that will receive much attention.
1. Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota
This case from Arizona deals with two highly contested topics: (1) requiring voter-registration applicants to produce “satisfactory evidence” of U.S. citizenship when registering with a state registration form and (2) allowing a process for a state to cancel the registrations of voters who are not U.S. citizens.
At the heart of the case is the National Voter Registration Act. This act allows voters to register to vote at the same time they apply for a driver's license, whether by mail or in person. Its requirements apply to 44 states and the District of Columbia. Arizona passed H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243 in 2022. The first law requires new voter registrants to provide physical "documentary proof of citizenship" records when filling out a state form. The second law permits county recorders to conduct citizenship audits of voter registration rolls against state and federal databases.
Mi Familia Vota and others sued to block these laws from going into effect. A divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement conflicted with a consent decree entered by Arizona’s Secretary of State. The court also said that (1) the National Voter Registration Act’s form, which did not require citizenship proof, took precedence, and (2) the voter audit needed to conclude 90 days prior to any federal election, in conformance with the National Voter Registration Act.
The Republican National Committee of Arizona wants the Supreme Court to rule on the state’s request for registrants to produce "satisfactory evidence" of U.S. citizenship when filing out the state registration form, and the ability of Arizona to audit its election rolls within 90 days of a federal election.
2. Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins
These two cases were consolidated for arguments as they both consider laws that place restrictions on the possession of assault rifles. The constitutional question is whether these laws conflict with the Second Amendment and 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
In Viramontes, Cutberto Viramontes and others are appealing a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding Cook County’ ban on AR-15 rifles. Viramontes sought to acquire such a rifle. Cook County criminalizes the sale, transfer, or possession of any “assault weapon” including AR-15s.
The circuit court concluded that rifles like the semiautomatic AR-15 rifle “are not ‘Arms’ under the Second Amendment,” citing Bevis v. City of Naperville, another Seventh Circuit decision from 2023. The Bevis court undertook a Bruen-style analysis to decide the case, using a frame from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). The Bruen test requires a court to look at history and tradition when considering appeals about laws that restrict firearms ownership.
In his appeal, Viramontes said the appeals court misapplied Bruen and did not consider another key Supreme Court precedent, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). “Under Bruen and Heller, this case should have been straightforward,” his attorneys argued. “While history and tradition support the banning of weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, [Cook County]’s ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” it claimed in its petition to the Supreme Court.
3. Grand v. City of University Heights
In this case, Daniel Grand petitioned the Supreme Court pro se, or on his own behalf. Grand, an Orthodox Jew, invited 15 of his friends over to pray with a “minyan,” in the privacy of his home in University Heights, Ohio. Grand was then contacted by the town’s mayor and its law director before the minyan. They told Grand that praying in a residential home constituted a “synagogue” under the University Heights zoning code, which required a special-use permit. Grand also received a cease-and-desist letter.
Grand soon appeared at a livestreamed zoning board hearing. The board members tabled Grand’s permit request after a contentious hearing that Grand perceived was hostile due to his religion. Grand later withdrew his application for the continued hearing.
Grand sued the city, its mayor, and its law director in federal court. The district court ruled that Grand lacked standing to sue on First Amendment grounds and dismissed his case for lack of ripeness. It cited the Supreme Court’s precedent in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985), as requiring Grand to get a final zoning board decision before pursuing his claim. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision.
University Heights declined to respond to Grand’s pro se petition at the Supreme Court, which triggered a quick request from the Justices after a private conference for the city to file a response. Several First Amendment groups have also filed amicus briefs, with the Alliance Defending Freedom and two other legal groups now representing Grand.
The question accepted by the Court is whether “a credible government threat that deters the exercise of fundamental rights” is displaced by Williamson County’s land-use finality requirement when a plaintiff alleges that government threats both before and after a Planning Commission meeting chilled his religious exercise, worship, and assembly.
4. St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy
The justices accepted this case for arguments on April 20, 2026, as another test about the First Amendment and religious rights.
The petitioners, Catholic preschools in the Archdiocese of Denver, claim religious discrimination when they were denied state funding under a Colorado universal preschool program that pays for families to send their children to public or private preschools.
The state of Colorado said the Catholic preschools could not receive funding if they excluded families from its preschools who disagreed with the Catholic Church’s teachings on gender and sexuality. The preschools also had not signed a nondiscrimination agreement as required by the state, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights.
The nondiscrimination agreement is based on a state law requiring that all eligible children receive “an equal opportunity to enroll and receive preschool services regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level, or disability, as such characteristics and circumstances apply to the child or the child’s family.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed with a lower court ruling that the state could deny funding to the schools. It cited Supreme Court precedent in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), stating the Colorado program and law were generally applicable and did not target the preschools.
The preschools believed that a recent Supreme Court decision, Carson v. Makin (2022), applied in its case. In Carson, a divided Court held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
In accepting St. Mary Catholic Parish, the Court denied a request to consider whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overturned. Instead, it will consider how the two Supreme Court precedents, Smith and Carson, apply when lower courts consider if a government is explicitly excluding religious people and institutions from public benefits.
Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.