US Supreme Court 2026–2027: What’s at stake
Updated: 10/05/2026
On October 5, 2026, the US Supreme Court 2026-2027 term begins. The merits docket — cases set for oral arguments — is always a work in progress with new cases added throughout the term. Here are some of the consequential cases of special concern to NCJW. This list will change and grow as more cases are accepted for review. We expect that the justices will continue to consider more cases on the so-called shadow docket without oral arguments with rulings issued unsigned with little or no explanation. If the pattern of the Roberts Court holds, this term is likely to be controversial, precedent-challenging, and hugely impactful for our lives and our democracy.
Quick links:
Voting rights
Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota
This case comes from Arizona which is covered by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), often referred to as “Motor Voter” because it allows new voters to register to vote when they apply for a drivers license either in person or by mail. Arizona passed a law requiring physical “documentary proof of citizenship” when filling out the state registration form. They also passed legislation allowing Arizona county recorders to conduct a ‘citizenship audit’ by comparing their voter lists with state and national databases even 90 days before an election. The voting-rights organization, Mi Familia Vota, sued to block these laws. The Ninth Circuit said that requiring proof of citizenship conflicted with the NVRA which takes precedence over state laws and that any audit needed to conclude 90 days prior to any federal election. The Arizona Republican National Committee has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Oral argument: December 8, 2026
Why we’re watching: NCJW, which actively advocated for the NVRA, supports safe, easy, and equitable access to the ballot and the elimination of obstacles to the electoral process. The Arizona laws make it more difficult for eligible voters to cast their ballots.
LGBTQ+ rights
International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson
Washington State requires youth shelters to notify parents of a child’s condition and location within 72 hours when a minor runaway appears at the shelter. In the past, the only exception was if notifying the parent would expose the minor to possible abuse or neglect. In 2023, the state passed two laws that added an additional exception, if the minor was “seeking or receiving protected health care services,” explicitly including “gender-affirming treatment.” In those cases, the shelter would notify the state Department of Children, Youth, and Families which would make a “good-faith effort” to locate the parents based on information obtained from the minor who would be offered appropriate behavioral health services. Parents would not be given the child’s location. Five sets of parents, under pseudonyms, sued the state claiming that the laws violated their constitutional rights to direct their children’s upbringing, refuse medical treatment on their children’s behalf, and raise them consistent with their religious beliefs. A district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, and the Ninth Circuit Court agreed, denying a full court hearing although three judges felt that the parents did have standing. The Supreme Court will consider the case and decide whether parents have standing to challenge laws that remove their decision-making role in situations of gender transition care.
Oral Arguments: December 7, 2026
Why we’re watching: NCJW supports every person’s right to privacy. NCJW’s Resolutions also call for: “laws, policies, programs, and services that provide age-appropriate agency for every child and youth and protect from all forms of abuse, neglect, exploitation, bullying, discrimination, harassment, and violence.” Washington State’s laws provide that protection.
Gun violence
Viramontes v. Cook County
Cook County, Illinois, enacted a law banning the sale, possession, or transfer of assault weapons, defining that term to include about 100 types of semiautomatic rifles. Two individuals, Cutberto Viramontes and Christopher Khaya, together with two pro-gun organizations sued Cook County for violating their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sided with Cook County, a decision which was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit in June 2025. Viramontes, Khaya, and the gun-rights organizations appealed to the Supreme Court which consolidated this case with Grant v. Higgins, a similar case from Connecticut which challenged their ban following the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. Although a majority of the Court declined to hear a similar case involving a Maryland assault weapons ban last year, this year they agreed to consider the constitutionality of such bans.
Oral arguments: December 2, 2026
Why we’re watching: Fostering safety in our communities is a core focus of NCJW’s advocacy. NCJW supports “laws, policies, and programs that regulate firearms and ammunition and ban assault and other military-style weapons and accessories.” These weapons are highly lethal and have been used in deadly mass shootings that have cost hundreds of lives nationwide.
Immigration
Wassily v. Blanche
In 1993, Tamar Wassily, a native of Egypt, arrived in the US on a visitor’s visa in 1993. He overstayed his visa but, during removal proceedings, he successfully applied for asylum because as a Coptic Christian he feared persecution in Egypt. Four years later, in 2004, he was convicted of third-degree stalking and child endangerment which led the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reopen his case and revoke his asylum. An immigration judge terminated his asylum and after a round of appeals, the immigration judge again ended his asylum but decided he could still apply to become a lawful permanent resident. After the judge approved that application, DHS appealed and while the appeal was pending, the Board of Immigration Appeals decided that only a person with asylum can apply for lawful permanent residency which meant that Wassily was ineligible because he no longer had asylum. A divided panel of the Second Circuit Court, as well as other circuit courts, determined that only those with asylum were eligible for an adjustment in status. In these current times when the termination of asylum is more commonly pursued, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether individuals whose asylum status has been revoked may be barred from obtaining lawful permanent residency.
Oral arguments: November 30, 2026
Why we’re watching: NCJW is concerned about the administration’s ever-expanding restrictions on asylum as well as the targeting of individuals in the US who have already received asylum. People with asylum have proven that they face persecution in their countries of origin. This case could put many of these individuals at risk of being returned to the very countries from which they fled.
Department of Homeland Security v. DVD
In its second term, the Trump administration has instituted a policy of third-country removals, deporting immigrants from the US to countries that are not on their deportation orders with as little as six hours notice and without the opportunity to cite a fear of torture in the receiving country. A watchdog organization claims that to date, more than 25,000 people have been sent to about 29 “third” countries. In a case from Massachusetts, D.V.D., a Cuban immigrant, and three others filed a class action suit contending that they feared torture if sent to a third country that was not on their original deportation orders. In March, a federal district court judge barred removing them without advance written notice and a chance to challenge the third-country removal. The case was eventually appealed to the First Circuit which sided with the lower court. The US Solicitor General asked the Supreme Court to block the court’s ruling. This was the third time that the government was successful in getting the Supreme Court to stay the lower court ruling and allow the policy to continue. The Supreme Court announced that they would hear full arguments on third-country removals including due process, among other related issues.
Oral arguments: December 9, 2026
Why we’re watching: NCJW believes that all individuals deserve human rights and dignity and the right to live free from persecution. We support humane immigration laws and policies. Forcibly removing someone to an unknown country with no notice or due process violates fundamental human rights.
Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha
A Brazilian immigrant Ricardo Barbosa da Cunha came to the US illegally 20 years ago. He has never been convicted of a crime and applied for asylum in 2016 and was given a valid work permit. Last year, however, he was picked up by ICE during a routine traffic stop and was subject to removal. Barbosa da Cunha requested a bond hearing, but an immigration judge claimed that he was subject to mandatory detention without the possibility of a bond hearing. After filing suit on the basis of denial of due process, a New York federal judge ruled in his favor and set a bond hearing which led to Barbosa da Cunha being released in October 2025. On appeal to the Second Circuit Court, the court ruled against the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy. Up until last year, noncitizens who had already entered the US and had lived here for many years were allowed to pay a bond and be released while they awaited their deportation proceedings. Currently the policy is to hold them indefinitely without bond, a policy that has been ruled unconstitutional over 9,000 times by federal judges nationwide. Nine circuit courts have ruled against such detention. Only the Fifth and Eighth Circuit Courts have upheld the Trump policy. Now the Supreme Court plans to rule on the issue.
Oral argument: TBD
Why we’re watching: NCJW believes that “individual liberties and rights guaranteed by the Constitution are keystones of a democratic, pluralistic society and must be protected and preserved.” The Fifth Amendment guarantees fair legal protections and processes before someone’s liberty is taken away.
Religious freedom
St. Mary Parish v. Roy
The state of Colorado’s Universal Preschool Program offers free preschool to children through both public and private providers, requiring schools to sign a nondiscrimination agreement to enroll any child from any family regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. St. Mary’s Catholic parish in Littleton, Colorado, refused to sign the agreement, arguing that their religious tenets require them to consider sexual orientation and gender identity of families in admission. A district court refused to issue an injunction to halt the state law because the nondiscrimination provision was neutral and applied generally across-the-board. The Tenth Circuit Court agreed because the state’s rule applies to every preschool regardless of religion, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith in 1990. St. Mary’s Parish appealed and asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the landmark Smith decision. While the Court agreed to take the case, it refused to reopen the Smith decision.
Oral arguments: November 3, 2026
Why we’re watching: NCJW’s Resolutions state our support for: “… laws, policies, regulations, programs, and services which protect individual and civil rights for all and eliminate systemic biases and discrimination.” State funds should not go to institutions or individuals that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio
In 2019, Daniel Grand who is an observant Orthodox Jew bought a house in University Heights. Since it was too far to walk to the nearest synagogue, Grand invited a dozen community members (enough to constitute the minyan of ten men required under Orthodox practices to hold prayers) to join him in a room of his house to pray on Shabbat and High Holy Days. Grand made no structural changes to his home and used no amplification, but a neighbor complained to city officials. The city ordered Grand to obtain a Special Use Permit (SUP) and issued a “cease and desist order” until the permit was obtained. When Grand applied, the city turned the hearing into a “quasi judicial” review — for the first time in the city’s history — which prevented Grand from entering additional supporting materials. He subsequently withdrew his application. The mayor publicly warned that any activities “consistent with” those of a house of worship still required an SUP. The City had previously sued and obtained an injunction against another Jewish prayer group. Daniel Grand sued the city and several officials for violating his First Amendment free exercise and free speech and assembly rights and also the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) which protects individuals and religious groups from unfair zoning and land-use laws. The district court and Sixth Circuit Court dismissed the claims because there had never been any land-use determination by the planning commission, but they did not rule on the First Amendment issues. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.
Oral arguments: December 9, 2026
Why we’re watching: NCJW advocated for passage of RLUIPA and believes that zoning and land-use laws should not unfairly penalize religious groups or institutions.
Perez v. City of San Antonio
Gary Perez and Matilda Torres are members of the Lipan Native American Church which holds religious observances in a park on the San Antonio River. The city of San Antonio plans to renovate the park and do bird mitigation to decrease the bird population because the bird guana is destroying important infrastructure like retaining walls. The city plans to remove trees used by migratory birds like cormorants which are sacred to the church and are part of their observances. The church members sued the city in 2023 to protect the trees, a focus of their worship over the centuries, claiming infringement of their First Amendment free exercise rights and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA). A federal district court judge allowed the city to continue some of its efforts but required a fenced-off area be set up for the church’s ceremonies. Perez and Torres appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court which agreed with the lower court, ruling that the renovations do not substantially impede the church ceremonies and that the city has a compelling interest in addressing problems arising from the large bird population. The case will be heard by the Supreme Court on appeal to determine whether the government can override “a claimant’s sincere theological judgment of what the religious exercise requires” without violating First Amendment rights.
Oral arguments: TBD
Why we’re watching: The case raises important questions for NCJW about religious freedom and the ability of people — particularly members of minority faiths — to practice their religion without undue government interference. The Supreme Court’s decision could shape how courts understand the protections afforded to religious practice when government actions affect sacred spaces.
Civil rights
Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
This case combines two cases about the right of individuals to sue a federally funded educational institution alleging sex discrimination under Title IX. MaChelle Joseph, head coach of the women’s basketball team at Georgia Tech, repeatedly complained that the women’s team was provided with fewer resources than the men’s team and filed a formal internal complaint alleging sex discrimination and retaliation. The university then hired an outside investigator to look into complaints about her coaching which led to her firing in 2019. Her case was combined with that of Thomas Crowther, an art teacher at Augusta University, who was accused of sexual harassment by several students in 2020. A Title IX investigation was undertaken which Crowther claimed was biased against him as a male because he was denied the identities of his accusers and most of his witnesses were not interviewed. He also received his first negative performance review in nearly 15 years during this time. After investigators found that he had violated the university’s sexual harassment policy, he was suspended for a semester and Augusta did not renew his contract while his appeal was in process. Both Joseph and Crowthers sued under Title IX claiming that, as employees at federally funded institutions, they were allowed to bring their cases to federal court. The cases had different outcomes in district court and were consolidated in the Eleventh Circuit Court on appeal. The circuit court ruled in 2024 that Title IX does not provide an implied private right of action for employees alleging sex discrimination in employment. The Supreme Court will consider whether this is the case.
Oral arguments: November 30, 2026
Why we’re watching:NCJW supports laws — like Title IX — that provide protection against discrimination. Academic employees are covered by Title IX and must be able to seek justice in court if they believe their rights have been violated.