Supreme Court
Thomas and Alito Enter New Supreme Court Term at Peak Influence
The court's two longest-serving conservatives approach a term featuring gun, religion and voting disputes, alongside continuing cases over presidential power.
A new term begins Monday
The Supreme Court begins its October 2026 term on Monday, October 5. Its published calendar lists the opening argument session, while the court's granted-cases list identifies matters already accepted for review. The docket includes disputes over gun restrictions, religion, voting rules and executive authority. A case's presence on the calendar means the justices will hear it; it does not indicate the result.
The court's senior conservatives
Justice Clarence Thomas, 78, has served since 1991, and Justice Samuel Alito, 76, since 2006. Reuters reports that their influence has increased since the court gained a six-member conservative majority in 2020. Positions that once appeared mainly in dissents can now attract a majority. Their separate writings also invite litigants to bring arguments that could reshape precedent in later cases.
Retirement speculation
The justices' ages and the approaching Senate election have generated speculation about possible vacancies. Alito has publicly indicated that he will remain for the new term. No retirement should be reported without an announcement from the justice or the court. If a vacancy did arise, the president would nominate a successor and the Senate would decide whether to confirm, making chamber control politically significant.
Cases with lasting reach
The term offers opportunities to reconsider rules concerning semiautomatic-rifle restrictions, proof-of-citizenship voting requirements and religious freedom. The precise questions presented will determine how broadly any ruling applies. A decision can uphold a policy on narrow procedural grounds without endorsing every argument behind it, or invalidate one application while leaving a statute partly intact. Headline summaries should therefore be checked against the final opinion.
Presidential power remains central
The court is also expected to encounter further challenges to Trump administration actions. Last term produced both wins and limits for the president, showing that ideological alignment does not guarantee a uniform outcome. Statutory text, standing, remedies and separation-of-powers doctrine can lead the same justices to different conclusions across disputes. Emergency orders may temporarily control policy before full briefing and argument.
How to follow arguments
Questions from the bench can reveal which factual or legal issues concern a justice, but they are not votes. A justice may test the weakness of the side ultimately favored or ask few questions while holding a firm view. The authoritative result is the written judgment. Concurring opinions may support the outcome for narrower reasons, and dissents can influence later courts even though they do not control the present case.
Institutional stakes
Thomas and Alito have already helped transform constitutional and administrative law. The new term will show whether the conservative majority continues that pace or decides some disputes incrementally. For Congress and the White House, the rulings can define the boundaries of legislation and executive implementation. For the public, the most durable information will be the court's docket, briefs, argument transcripts and opinions—not predictions about personalities alone.
Reporting note: This article draws on public records and verified reporting; material claims are attributed in the text.