Are bans on AR-15s constitutional? Should 12-person juries be required? Here are some of the biggest Supreme Court cases expected next term
The court has agreed to hear at least 25 cases that cut across some of the most consequential issues in U.S. law, from gun rights and election rules to religious liberty and climate change.
Do state and local bans on AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles violate the Second Amendment?
Must states use 12-person juries when trying defendants charged with serious felonies?
Can Arizona require people registering to vote using state forms to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, as state law has mandated since 2022?
These questions — and many others — will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming months, with the court starting its new term on Oct. 5.
As of Sept. 21, the court has agreed to hear 25 cases that cut across some of the most consequential issues in United States law, from gun rights and election rules to religious liberty and climate change. Many of those cases have oral arguments already set; but the court usually adds to its docket.
Northeastern Global News asked several School of Law faculty members to compile a list of the top cases this coming term. Here they are, in no particular order.
Viramontes v. Cook County (consolidated with Grant v. Higgins)
The Supreme Court has had its say on Second Amendment issues multiple times in recent terms, but has so far sidestepped the question of whether assault weapons bans are constitutional.
Now, a lawsuit in Cook County, Illinois, consolidated with another in Connecticut, will put the matter before the high court.
In Viramontes v. Cook County, gun rights advocates and Cook County residents are challenging the county’s assault weapons ban on the basis, they claim, that it violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The court will consider whether those amendments — the first protecting the right to keep and bear arms, the other applying that right to state and local governments — extend to the possession of AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles in the face of local bans.
After decades of largely punting on major Second Amendment cases, the court has revisited the scope of the right to bear arms in 2008 with District of Columbia v. Heller, then with cases such as McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022 and United States v. Rahimi in 2024.
The common thread across those cases is that the court has established a national standard for evaluating gun laws, rather than letting states and localities set their own rules, said Martha Davis, distinguished professor of law at Northeastern University.
Editor’s Picks
Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota
Against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s attempts to vigorously tighten voting rules in federal elections, the Supreme Court will weigh in on whether Arizona can require its residents to provide proof of citizenship when filling out its state registration form.
The case is the result of a lawsuit filed by Mi Familia Vota and a coalition of election reform and voting rights groups challenging two Arizona laws — H.B. 2492 and H.B. 2243 — on the basis that they violate several laws designed to protect voters’ access to the ballot and prevent discriminatory voting practices.
Those laws include the National Voter Registration Act, which governs voter registration procedure; the Civil Rights Act, which bars states from imposing rules deemed “immaterial” or unnecessary to voter qualification; and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment under the law.
Kian v. Florida
In a case that carries significant implications for criminal law, the court will consider whether the Constitution requires that states use 12-person juries in serious felony cases.
Petitioner Hamed Kian, a Florida-based chiropractor, was tried and convicted by a six-person jury on five counts of practicing chiropractic medicine while his license was suspended. Kian appealed his conviction, arguing that the six-person jury that decided his case didn’t pass constitutional muster; when it comes to cases that carry significant penalties, he contends, the Sixth Amendment requires a full 12-person jury.
Kian petitioned the court to effectively overturn a 1970 precedent in Williams v. Florida that held that six-person juries could satisfy the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee. He may find some of the justices sympathetic to that argument, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has argued that the case was wrongly decided.
Davis said some justices may nevertheless be reluctant to overturn the decision in Williams v. Florida, given the court’s longstanding principle of stare decisis, or respect for precedent.
“Now we have a case that really questions an earlier decision,” she said, suggesting the justices will have to weigh the arguments for revisiting Williams against the force of the precedent itself.
St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy
In another First Amendment case, the Supreme Court will consider whether Colorado violated the Free Exercise Clause by excluding Catholic preschools from its universal preschool program.
The dispute arose in 2023, after Colorado barred the schools from participating in the program unless they agreed to its nondiscrimination requirement, which requires participating preschools to provide equal enrollment opportunities regardless of, among other things, religious affiliation, sexual orientation and gender identity.
The petitioners — the Archdiocese of Denver, two Catholic parishes and two parents — sued Colorado officials in September 2023, arguing that the state was discriminating against them because of their religious beliefs. The plaintiffs argue that they should be able to participate in the state-funded program while considering the sexual orientation and gender identity of potential students in admissions decisions.
“In recent years, the court has been very sympathetic to these kinds of claims,” Davis said. “This is another area where there’s been a series of cases.”
Other cases on climate liability, excessive fines
Other cases to watch include Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, which deals with fossil fuel companies and climate-change liability at the state level; Jouppi v. Alaska, which concerns how courts should determine whether a fine is unconstitutionally excessive; and Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, concerning the Labor Department’s authority to impose penalties on agricultural employers.
