The Supreme Court begins its new term on October 5 with disputes over climate costs, gun ownership and immigration enforcement. The decisions could determine whether energy companies must face lawsuits over damage to communities and whether governments can ban commonly owned rifles. They could also change the protections people receive before being detained or deported. Other disputes could change how citizens register to vote and where veterans can challenge the laws governing their benefits.

Below are six disputes to watch, including some of the term’s biggest cases and a quieter fight over veterans’ court access. Each has a different history and legal question. Understanding those differences helps explain both what could change and why the outcome matters.

The term begins during the final stretch of the fight for the House and Senate. These cases concern issues voters are weighing, but their legal and electoral calendars differ. Several arguments are scheduled for December, after the election. The next Congress could inherit questions about whether to change the laws the justices interpret. Voters will make that choice before knowing how some of these cases turn out.

Suncor Energy v. Boulder County

Boulder County and the City of Boulder, Colorado, say climate change is making it more expensive to protect residents and maintain public infrastructure. Their complaint describes costs for fighting wildfires, repairing roads and bridges, improving flood protection and safeguarding water supplies. They allege that Suncor and Exxon Mobil helped cause those expenses through their fossil-fuel products and conduct, including misleading the public about climate risks.

The local governments want the companies to pay a share. Here, climate costs mean money spent repairing damage and protecting people, property and public services. That gives the lawsuit a concrete question: can these communities make the companies contribute to bills the governments say climate change has increased?

The companies argue that a state cannot use its own law to assign liability for emissions produced across the country and around the world. They say that would let individual states impose competing rules on a problem requiring federal control.

Boulder responds that states have long allowed people and governments to seek compensation for harm, even when the conduct causing it crosses borders. It says federal emissions law does not erase claims concerning the production, sale and deceptive marketing of fossil fuels. The Colorado Supreme Court allowed the case to continue over the companies’ federal-law objection.

The result could affect other communities seeking compensation and the financial exposure companies face. Boulder would still have to prove its claims before recovering money. There is also an earlier question: does the Supreme Court have authority to hear this appeal now? A decision on that point could leave the broader liability dispute for another day.

Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins

The Court has combined challenges to rifle restrictions in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut. The challengers want to possess AR-15-style and similar semiautomatic rifles. They argue that the Second Amendment protects possession despite the bans.

Viramontes, Grant and the other challengers’ argument starts with common ownership. They say these rifles are widely possessed for lawful purposes and fall within the constitutional protection the Court has already recognized for arms in common use. From that perspective, a government cannot ban a protected weapon simply because it considers the weapon dangerous.

Cook County defends its restrictions by pointing to the rifles’ military characteristics, destructive capacity and role in mass shootings. It argues that the Constitution permits governments to restrict this category of weapon while leaving other firearms available.

A ruling protecting possession could undermine similar bans; a ruling upholding the restrictions could preserve governments’ ability to adopt them. The question concerns these rifles, so the outcome would still need to be read carefully before applying it to other gun laws.

Argument is scheduled for December 2.

Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.

A person facing deportation may have already argued that returning to a particular country would expose them to persecution or torture. What happens if the government then chooses a different country? The risk in that destination may never have been considered.

That is the problem behind this challenge to the administration’s third-country removal policy. The affected immigrants want advance notice of the destination and a meaningful chance to explain why sending them there would be unlawful.

The administration argues that the lower-court judgment interferes with the removal authority Congress gave it. It also disputes the court’s power to order relief covering a class of people rather than only the individuals bringing a claim.

The immigrants respond that protections against persecution and torture require an opportunity to raise those dangers before removal. Once someone has been sent into harm, a later court hearing may offer little practical protection.

The justices will consider both the protections owed before removal and the lower court’s authority to enforce them. Those questions can produce different answers: recognizing an individual right does not automatically settle what a judge may order for everyone covered by the policy.

The Court has temporarily paused the lower-court judgment and scheduled argument for December 9. For the people involved, the outcome could determine whether they can challenge a dangerous destination before being sent there.

Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha

The other immigration case concerns what happens while a deportation case is still underway. Ricardo Barbosa da Cunha entered the United States unlawfully more than two decades ago. After being detained, he sought a hearing at which an immigration judge could consider releasing him on bond.

Federal law contains different detention rules. One requires detention for certain people seeking admission. Another allows an individual release decision for people awaiting removal proceedings. The question before the Supreme Court is which rule applies to someone already living inside the country without having been legally admitted.

The government’s position treats people who were never admitted as applicants for admission, bringing them within mandatory detention. Barbosa da Cunha argues that living inside the country for years differs from seeking entry at the border. The Second Circuit agreed that he was entitled to a bond hearing.

The consequence is immediate: can a judge consider the person’s circumstances, or must the person remain detained under the mandatory rule? A hearing offers a chance to request release while the immigration case proceeds. It would neither guarantee release nor resolve whether they may remain in the country.

The Court agreed to hear the case on October 1. An argument date has not been set.

Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota

This Arizona case concerns citizenship documents and voter-roll removals. Citizenship is already a qualification for voting in federal elections. The dispute is about how a state verifies that qualification and what safeguards apply when it removes registrations close to an election.

Arizona sought documentary proof of citizenship from applicants using its state registration form. The case also concerns a federal rule limiting systematic removal programs during the 90 days before a federal election. Federal law allows a separate federal registration form.

The Republican National Committee argues that Arizona can require those documents on its own form and that the 90-day limit should not prevent removal of noncitizens. It says states need the authority to verify eligibility and maintain accurate rolls.

Mi Familia Vota and the other groups opposing the requirements argue that the measures conflict with federal registration protections. They defend safeguards intended to keep eligible citizens from losing access to the ballot through restrictive paperwork rules or last-minute removal programs.

The competing goals are understandable: keep ineligible people from voting and avoid excluding eligible citizens. The Court must decide what Congress’s existing rules allow Arizona to do.

Argument is scheduled for December 8. The decision could shape registration and roll-maintenance practices in future elections; the argument date falls after this year’s voting.

Johnson v. United States Congress

Floyd Johnson’s case began with disability compensation. An Army veteran, he was diagnosed with service-related post-traumatic stress disorder while serving a prison sentence for felony convictions. Federal law reduced the benefits payable to him because of his incarceration. He challenged the constitutionality of that law in a federal district court.

His case raises a question that can matter to other veterans: when the complaint concerns the law Congress wrote, must the veteran still work through the specialized benefits-review system?

Johnson argues that challenging a statute differs from appealing how the Department of Veterans Affairs handled an individual benefits claim. He says district courts retain authority to hear that constitutional challenge.

The federal government, representing Congress, argues that the review system Congress created covers these claims too. Veterans can obtain judicial review through that system, it says, so a constitutional argument does not justify bypassing it.

The Supreme Court is deciding where such a challenge may be heard. It is not deciding whether Johnson deserves restored benefits. The distinction matters because the required sequence of agency appeals and court review determines the steps a veteran must take to challenge the governing law.

Johnson is also on the October 5 argument calendar.

The next Congress could be asked to respond to decisions about public spending, personal freedom and access to a vote or a hearing.

There are limits to that power. A ruling interpreting a statute can prompt Congress to revise its wording. A constitutional ruling, such as one defining protected gun ownership, places limits on what lawmakers may enact. Ordinary legislation must pass the House and Senate and go to the president, so control of one chamber alone does not ensure a party can deliver its response.

Senate control also affects the confirmation of judicial nominees if vacancies arise. The election will choose who holds those legislative and confirmation powers. The justices will decide the cases separately.

That is the connection worth keeping in view: voters are choosing the people who will govern under these decisions, and who may try to change the laws behind them. Understanding the cases now makes those choices easier to judge.

We hold government to the record. Hold us to it too. Hit reply with feedback or things we missed.