Supreme Court opens its new term Monday with AR-15 bans, mass deportations, and climate on the docket

Two Washington storylines converged this weekend that will shape federal policy through the midterm elections and well beyond. The Supreme Court opens the 2026-27 term on Monday, October 5, carrying a docket that reaches into the country's most contested legal fights. Hours earlier, late Friday night, President Trump announced he would tap a largely dormant $2 billion congressional fund to mail $90 checks to more than 20 million Medicare recipients, a move that caught both parties off-guard and for which the White House had not produced a legal justification by Saturday.

The court returns, with a lighter but still consequential docket

The court opens with 30 cases accepted so far, about half its usual caseload. The relative quiet at the merits level, however, masks a different kind of busyness. Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck notes that the number of emergency appeals has ballooned during the Trump administration, producing twice as many full court rulings on emergency applications as on the merits docket, what he calls "a very new phenomenon."

The emergency docket is where the justices decide issues faster than normal, frequently in a matter of days or weeks rather than months, but without full arguments from both sides. That distinction matters enormously: the third-country deportation case already made its way to the justices on emergency footing before being folded into the regular term.

The nine justices are poised to decide whether states can ban sales of AR-15s and other popular semiautomatic rifles, rule on the legality of some of the more aggressive tactics the Department of Homeland Security has adopted in its pursuit of mass deportations, test states' ability to police climate change, and refine the boundary between church and state.

The AR-15 question

December will see the gun-rights case, when the justices will hear arguments on whether governments can ban AR-15s and similar rifles. It is the first case in years to examine the types of weapons and how they fall under the Second Amendment. More than 10 states and the District of Columbia prohibit AR-15-style semiautomatic weapons. The consolidated cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, challenge Illinois and Connecticut bans, respectively.

Former Solicitor General Don Verrilli Jr. laid out the tension plainly during a preview event. On one hand, the AR-15 "can deliver upwards of 100 bullets per minute" without enhancements, and 500 with various enhancements. On the other, millions of Americans own AR-15s, "and it would be quite disruptive to suggest all these Americans would be dispossessed of their weapons." SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe said the case will further clarify Second Amendment jurisprudence, "which is still in its relative infancy."

Third-country deportations

Since Trump began his second term, his administration has deported thousands of people to countries where they have no connections, may not speak the language, have often been jailed, and have allegedly been subject to torture. A federal district judge in Boston ruled that DHS's guidance likely violated migrants' due process rights and ordered immigration officials to provide written notice of the third country of removal as well as a meaningful opportunity, at least 10 days, to assert a fear of removal.

The Supreme Court granted the government's emergency request, allowing DHS to resume third-country removals for now, and said it would decide the legal merits. Arguments are set for December 9. Among the questions the court has asked both sides to address is whether the administration's guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under federal immigration law, the Constitution's Due Process Clause, and protections against torture.

A second immigration dispute on the docket, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, is narrower but affects more people day-to-day. This case challenges the Trump administration's directive instructing immigration authorities to detain noncitizens indefinitely, regardless of how long they have been in the United States.

What is not on the docket, yet

Experts like Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center say blockbuster cases are still on the way. "Just because there's an absence of cases involving Trump administration policies, that doesn't mean they are not coming," Gorod said. The court also faces the looming specter of last-second litigation over the coming midterm elections. That possibility alone makes the emergency docket, not the scheduled argument calendar, the watch item for the next several weeks.

Trump's $90 Medicare checks: real money, uncertain authority

Late Friday, Trump posted on Truth Social that his administration would send one-time direct deposits of $90 to more than 20 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part B. The total payout comes to roughly $2 billion, framed by the White House as an offset for Part B premium costs. Trump said the money would come from the Medicare Improvement Fund, a $2 billion pool established in 2008 that is appropriated by Congress.

The White House calls Trump the first president ever to use the Medicare Improvement Fund to directly lower costs for senior citizens, noting that no administration has ever utilized or made payments from it. A 2023 Congressional Budget Office report found that lawmakers had changed the fund's available amount 28 times, increasing it 11 times and reducing it 17 times, but CMS had made no outlays.

The legal question is real. The statute gives the secretary of Health and Human Services authority to use the fund to make "improvements" to original Medicare Parts A and B, then specifically mentions adjustments to payments for medical items and services that doctors, hospitals, and other suppliers provide. The statutory language says the fund is available to make improvements to original Medicare and adjust payments for healthcare services. It does not specifically describe a $90 payment to beneficiaries.

The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Medicare Improvement Fund, did not respond to questions about the administration's legal authority to issue the payments. Trump's announcement caught congressional offices in both parties by surprise, according to three people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment.

Democrats did not hold back. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, called it "another desperate attempt by a failed president to escape Americans' revulsion with his failed agenda, amounting to one tank of Trump-inflated gas." Per Medicare, the standard Part B premium is $202.90 a month, so the $90 credit will offset less than half of one month's bill.

The political context is not subtle. The announcement comes as the president faces a downturn in economic approval ratings ahead of the midterm elections, in which the Republican Party is fighting to maintain its control of Congress. The $90 payment is separate from a proposed $5,000 "Trump dividend" that the president has tied to Republicans retaining control of Congress in the November election. The Senate adjourned Wednesday night for the fast-approaching November 3 midterm elections, and when Congress reconvenes in November for the lame-duck session, it will face many unfinished legislative priorities, including defense authorization and funding the federal government.

Medicaid-subsidized enrollees, income-surcharge payers, and Medicare Advantage enrollees are excluded. KFF says more than half of eligible beneficiaries have Medicare Advantage, meaning most seniors on Medicare will not receive a check at all.

What to Watch

• October 5: Monday marks the official start of the 2026-27 Supreme Court term. The justices will hear two oral arguments that first day.
• Third-country deportations, December 9: Oral arguments in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. will be the term's first major immigration showdown. Watch for how the court handles the class-action relief question, which could affect tens of thousands of pending cases.
• Medicare Improvement Fund legal opinion: HHS has not published any formal legal memo authorizing the $90 disbursement. Congressional Democrats on the Finance Committee are expected to demand one. Whether the GAO, which has already signaled willingness to challenge administration spending actions, weighs in could determine whether this is a campaign ad or a court fight.
• AR-15 argument, December: Viramontes v. Cook County will be the first time the court addresses whether the Second Amendment protects the specific type of weapon, not just the right to possess one. Gun-rights advocates have been waiting for this fight, seeing a court ready to strike down laws in more than 10 states that restrict AR-15 sales.
• Midterm emergency docket: All eyes remain on the justices' expanding emergency docket, where an increasing number of major cases have landed. With November 3 five weeks out, election-law emergency applications from either party could arrive any day.

Sources: The Hill | Axios | The Washington Post | UPI | White House Fact Sheet | Roll Call | NPR | CBS News | Washington Times | SCOTUSblog | PBS NewsHour | Littler Workplace Policy Institute