The US Supreme Court reconvened on October 5 for its 2026-27 term which concludes in June of 2027. Cases involving the rights of immigrants, rules governing elections, LGBTQIA rights, and more, stand at the forefront this term. The Court’s decisions could have significant consequences for how federal and state laws protect individual rights.
The Court begins this term with a 6–3 conservative majority. Three of the nine justices, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, were nominated by President Donald Trump. Recent decisions, including the overturning of Dobbs and rulings affecting the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, have already reshaped the legal landscape. This term, the justices will consider additional disputes over voting regulations and the rights of young people.
Among these cases is Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, which is scheduled to be heard on December 8. The Court will decide whether Arizona can require proof of citizenship to register to vote and if the National Voter Registration Act prohibits Arizona from canceling the registrations of non-citizens within 90 days of a federal election.
Despite the lack of evidence of noncitizen voting, concerns about voter eligibility have led to policies that can create additional hurdles for eligible voters in Arizona, especially indigenous people. Arizona is home to one of the largest Indigenous reservations in the US, but was one of the last states to allow Indigenous people to vote.
Indigenous votes play a vital role in deciding the outcome of state and federal elections. In 2020, Indigenous voters from the Hopi and Navajo reservation cast nearly 60,000 votes.
The Supreme Court’s decision could affect how Arizona and other states administer voter registration and verify citizenship. It will also determine how federal law limits states’ authority to change voter registration records close to an election.
The Court will also hear International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson on December 7. The Administration has vilified the queer community spewing anti-trans and homophobic rhetoric in the name of religious freedom. The decision of this case will impact the livelihood of queer adolescents that struggle with their gender identity.
The case is challenging a Washington State law on whether runaway minors can seek access to gender-affirming care without parental permission. Ending gender-affirming care has been a top priority for the Trump administration pushing for hospitals to discriminate against patients based on gender orientation and identity. This pressure has led at least six hospitals to agree to refuse gender-affirming hormones and surgery for transgender young people and agreed to make payments to the federal government.
As the term continues, the Court’s decisions will shape how federal protections and state laws apply to voting access, family rights and LGBTQIA+ communities. Oral arguments will offer insight into the justices’ questions, but final rulings are expected later in the term.
The Supreme Court’s work affects people across the country, often in ways that reach beyond the specific parties involved in a case. As the midterm elections approach on November 3, make a plan to vote, bring friends, spread the word. For nonpartisan voter registration information, election dates and voting resources, visit Vote411.org/feminist.