Sept. 2, 2026 — Although one thinks of the U.S. Supreme Court starting its calendar on the first Monday of October, the interim docket — or emergency docket — keeps the justices busy in the hot Washington summer.

The Supreme Court granted 25 cases for the 2026 Term, and in August, decided six cases on the interim docket, which is still in the 2025 Term.

Oral Arguments Are Back

The first cases to be heard on the merits docket in the new term include:

• Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County (Oct. 5). It’s a hot issue in several respects, questioning whether a state court can decide injury claims involving the dangers of allegedly climate-warming greenhouse gases, perhaps the ultimate interstate activity that plaintiffs argue requires federal jurisdiction.

• Johnson v. U.S. Congress (Oct. 5). A veteran, disabled while serving honorably in the infantry, challenges the constitutionality of a statute limiting disability benefits. Administrative exhaustion promises futility. He argues that U.S. District Courts should have jurisdiction to hear his case instead of what he described as “navigat[ing] a years-long administration process before the notoriously backlogged Board of Veterans’ Appeals,” which cannot decide the constitutional challenge.

• Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee (Oct. 6). Employees rely upon retirement plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). What happens when a fund underperforms? Can one argue the fiduciary failed to use the requisite “care, skill, prudence, or diligence” under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA’s duty of prudence when investing plan assets requires alleging a “meaningful benchmark”?

• Department of Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan (Oct. 7). The Department of the Air Force raises issues about the technical operation of longstanding environmental laws, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the National Economic Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, which requires environmental impact statements. When the state or territory reviews renewal of a RCRA permit, is that a “final agency action” allowing immediate review under the Administrative Procedure Act? Must the federal government comply with NEPA’s general environmental-review procedures before submitting its RCRA permit renewal application although RCRA has its own specific procedures to review hazardous waste treatment environmental impacts?

Interim Docket Decisions

President Donald Trump is 3 for 3 in his requests before the interim docket in August:

• In Trump v. California, the Supreme Court granted the government’s request to allow federal agencies to fully implement President Trump’s executive order limiting mail-in voting while the case remains pending. The same request in a companion case, Alabama v. California, the Supreme Court dismissed as moot.

• In National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Supreme Court allowed — while the case remained pending — the ongoing construction of the ballroom at the East Wing of the White House, which also promises to be “an integrated military complex.”

In contrast, the following petitioners came up short:

• Sichuan Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Flores involved a request to stop lower-court proceedings while Sichuan Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd. prepares a petition for review on the denial of its motion to quash service of summons for lack of specific personal jurisdiction.

• Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. involved a request to stop lower-court proceedings in a case while the Supreme Court reviews a civil contempt finding from earlier in the dispute, which challenges the commission that Apple earns on linked-out App Store purchases.

• Palestine Liberation Organization v. Sokolow had the PLO seeking a halt on enforcing a $655.5 million judgment against the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority.

A Nationwide ‘Justice on Wheels’?

The U.S. Supreme Court always has home-field advantage, sitting in Washington, D.C. across the street from the Capitol.

A constitutional law professor in Texas suggests the Supreme Court should hold oral arguments across the country — like the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Justice on Wheels program, which places oral arguments throughout the state — to educate the public about how the Supreme Court operates.

Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston wrote in SCOTUSblog that “the justices should take their show on the road. At regular intervals, the justices should hold oral arguments at different courthouses throughout the country.”

U.S. Court of Appeals courthouses are ideal locations. They offer available space for the justices and are equipped for security, Blackman explained.

The nearest ones to Wisconsin are in Chicago (Seventh Circuit), St. Louis (Eighth Circuit), and Cincinnati (Sixth Circuit).

The travel schedule would include “official goodwill missions,” Blackman envisions. Justices would visit law schools and meet with the local press.

“[J]ustices should go in pairs, so the public can see how justices who do not agree with each other can still engage in a civil fashion,” Blackman said. “Justice Elena Kagan’s recent congressional testimony with Justice Amy Coney Barrett provides a model of civility.”

Recommending tickets for oral arguments go to the public in a neutral manner, Blackman said, would allow “[t]he people outside the capital district [to] see how the court functions.”

A recent Marquette Law School Poll finds only 47% of adults approve of the way the Supreme Court is doing its job, a gradual decline.

The survey released Aug. 5 broke that rating down to 74% approval from Republicans, 35% from independents, and 22% from Democrats.

Blackman notes that other courts “hold oral arguments in different locations, including at law schools.”

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has done that since 1993 in a program called Justice on Wheels. The court has visited 33 locations for oral arguments, which draw “a standing-room-only crowd” to rural courthouses.

The program includes local attorneys explaining the cases to be heard to the audience, among other ceremonies.

Last October, the supreme court heard oral arguments in the Richland County Courthouse in Richland Center. On Oct. 13, the supreme court will sit at the Heyde Center for the Arts in Chippewa Falls.

The challenge for the U.S. Supreme Court taking to the road would require resolution of hard issues, Blackman advised, like “complex logistics” – and sufficient funds.