The justices hear a major climate case today, with an assault-weapons ban and an immigration detention fight on deck. The 7th Circuit, which covers Wisconsin, already rejected the administration's detention argument in a Racine man's case.
The U.S. Supreme Court opens its new term this morning with a climate case that could decide whether local governments can make oil companies pay for climate damage, the first of roughly 30 cases the justices have agreed to hear so far.1,2 Later this term, the court will also decide whether states can ban AR-15-style rifles and whether the Trump administration can hold immigrants without bond hearings, two questions Wisconsin's federal appeals court has already answered.
Monday's first argument is Suncor Energy v. Boulder County.3 Boulder County, Colorado, sued Suncor and ExxonMobil in 2018, alleging the companies knew their products would cause harm and misled the public for decades, adding to wildfire, flood and extreme-heat risks.2,4 The companies, backed by the Trump administration, argue that emissions cross state lines and only federal law should govern them. In court papers, they describe the suits as an attempt to impose an enormous carbon tax that could bankrupt the industry.5
"This is a case about corporate accountability," Corey Riday-White, legal director at the Center for Climate Integrity, told NPR.4 Dozens of other local governments have filed similar suits, according to CNN.5 Justice Samuel Alito, who owns stock in fossil fuel companies, has stepped aside.5 A 4-4 split would leave the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in place, letting Boulder's case move forward, without setting a national precedent.2
No Wisconsin government has filed a climate-deception suit of its own, and Attorney General Josh Kaul didn't sign the multistate brief, led by Colorado, that backs Boulder.6
In June, the court agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to the Illinois county's ban on semiautomatic assault-style rifles.7 The 7th Circuit, which covers Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana, upheld that ban, and the case is set for argument Dec. 2.7,8 Wisconsin has no law restricting assault weapons, according to the Giffords Law Center.9 A ruling would still set the constitutional limits for any future gun legislation in Madison.
Some lawyers expect the challengers to win. "I think we know how this case is going to come out," appellate attorney Deepak Gupta told CNN.1 Americans are split: 48% told the Marquette Law School national poll in September that there is a constitutional right to own an AR-15, while 52% said there isn't.10
On Oct. 1, the court agreed to hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, which asks whether the government can treat immigrants arrested inside the country as "seeking admission" and hold them without a bond hearing.11 ICE detention has grown from just under 38,000 people at the end of the Biden administration to more than 65,000 this summer, CNN reported.1 District judges have ruled against the policy in roughly 90% of cases.2
Nine federal appeals courts have rejected the administration's reading, and two, the 5th and 8th circuits, have sided with it.11,12 One of the nine is the 7th Circuit, which ruled in July in the case of Jaciel Cirrus Rojas, a Racine man arrested in June 2025 when ICE agents came looking for someone else.13 Rojas was held for about nine months in the Dodge County jail, and the 7th Circuit ruled that he was entitled to a bond hearing.13,14 "Detention without sufficient purpose, or indefinitely prolonged detention, threatens due process," Judge Joshua Kolar wrote.14
Dodge County's jail had an average daily population of 117 ICE detainees in early July.15 Brown County also amended its federal inmate contract in 2025 to hold ICE detainees, and FOX 11 found 27 people held there in May and June of that year.16 A Supreme Court win for the administration would mean more people held in jails like these without a judge deciding whether their detention is necessary.
The court has already shaped this fall's election from its emergency docket. On Sept. 25, it let the Trump administration's revamped SAVE citizenship database be used to check voter rolls, over the dissents of its three liberal justices.17 In Wisconsin, the legal group Law Forward argues that state law, which relies on a voter's sworn statement of citizenship, doesn't allow the bulk checks SAVE performs, and it has asked the Wisconsin Elections Commission for an advisory opinion.18
The justices start the term with 43% approval, down from 47% in July, according to Marquette's national survey.10 Republicans approve at 71%, independents at 36% and Democrats at 19%.10
Arguments continue Tuesday with a 401(k) case against Intel's retirement plan managers and run through Oct. 14.3 The assault-weapons case is scheduled for Dec. 2, and argument dates for the immigration detention and third-country deportation cases haven't been set.1,8 Most decisions are expected by the end of June.
The Pentagon used an emergency process to remove a checkbox for Americans abroad who've never lived in the U.S. Democrats have sued. Wisconsin told its clerks the change doesn't affect who can vote here.
First-term Democrat Ryan Spaude wants to phase out Wisconsin's voucher program. Republican challenger Bobby Lindsey wants to keep it. Here's where the 89th Assembly District candidates stand.
Incumbent Tammy Weckler-Sternard, Republican Curt Vandertie and independent Randy Wagner agree Door County shouldn't sign a 287(g) agreement. The campaign has turned on a union no-confidence vote and released personnel files.
Federal refund checks are going to marketplace enrollees who paid full price this year, a small slice of the market. Wisconsin insurers want about 21% more for 2027, and open enrollment starts Nov. 1.
Join for free and unsubscribe at anyime
