The Supreme Court returns to its work

PUBLISHED: October 13, 2026 | www.baltimoresun.com

The Supreme Court’s new term began on Oct. 5. The cases ahead will put questions about presidential power, immigration, climate litigation, gun rights, voting rules and religious liberty before the justices. This is a fitting moment to revisit the court’s role in our constitutional system.

The court is not a political party, a legislature or an arm of the president. Its job is to interpret the Constitution and federal law, resolve disputes and determine whether government action stays within legal bounds. Congress writes laws. The president and executive agencies enforce them. Courts decide cases brought under those laws and review whether the government has exceeded its authority.

The president nominates Supreme Court justices, and the Senate confirms them. Once appointed, justices serve during good behavior and do not face reelection. That independence is intended to protect them from political pressure and allow them to rule according to the Constitution and the law, even when their decisions are unpopular.

The court does not take every case that reaches it. Thousands of petitions arrive each year, but the justices hear only a small share, often when a question has national importance or lower courts disagree about the law. Most of the court’s work is appellate: reviewing decisions made by lower courts.

The justices have already begun hearing arguments. On Oct. 5, they considered Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a dispute over whether Boulder’s state-law climate claims against energy companies may proceed in state court. The outcome could affect similar lawsuits around the country and test the boundary between federal authority and state courts.

Immigration is another major issue. The court is set to consider whether federal law permits mandatory detention for certain immigrants while deportation proceedings are pending, including whether they must have access to bond hearings. A separate dispute over removals to third countries raises questions about what opportunity people should have to explain the danger they may face if sent there. These cases will test the reach of federal power and the protections available to people facing removal.

Other cases will address state bans on semiautomatic rifles, Arizona voter-registration requirements and a Colorado preschool funding program challenged by Catholic institutions on religious-liberty grounds. In each dispute, the justices must weigh the constitutional and statutory claims and explain how the law applies. They are not elected to enact their preferred policies. Their responsibility is to determine what the Constitution and laws permit.

The court’s October calendar also includes cases with less familiar names but significant legal questions. In Beaird v. United States, the justices will consider how courts should treat commentary accompanying the federal Sentencing Guidelines. In Salazar v. Paramount Global, scheduled for Wednesday, they will consider who qualifies as a “consumer” under a federal video-privacy law, including whether signing up for certain online services can support a claim under that statute. Decisions in both cases could guide lower courts well beyond the people and organizations directly involved.

The Supreme Court matters because it is part of a system of checks and balances. It gives individuals a forum to challenge government action and provides a process for resolving disputes involving federal law and the Constitution. Its decisions can limit elected officials, but the court is constrained as well: It decides real cases, applies the law and must explain its judgments.

The justices may disagree, and their decisions will be debated. That is part of a free society. The court’s role is not to echo the day’s political passions. Its responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and apply the law, even when the result disappoints one side or another.

As the term unfolds, Americans should pay attention not only to who wins a particular case but also to the legal principles behind each decision. A constitutional republic depends on more than elections. It depends on independent courts, the rule of law and citizens who understand why those institutions matter.

Armstrong Williams (www.armstrongwilliams.com; @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun.

©️ 2026 Baltimore Sun