The Supreme Court's first argument week, October 5 to 7, is four cases about whether a lawsuit can go forward: what a 401(k) lawsuit must allege, which court hears a veteran's constitutional claim, whether federal law bars Boulder's state-law climate suit against two oil companies, and when a Guam group can challenge the Air Force's bid to keep detonating old munitions in the open. The federal government's lawyers argue against the side that sued in all four.
…Court hears the first arguments of its new term. On the line are claims brought by workers who saved in Intel's retirement plans, an Army veteran whose disability pay was cut, the city and county of Boulder,…
Read record summary
The Supreme Court's new term opens with four arguments on October 5, 6 and 7, and each turns, at least in part, on whether a lawsuit can go forward rather than on who is right about the facts. On October 5 the Court hears Suncor Energy v. Commissioners of Boulder County (No. 25-170), on whether federal law bars Boulder's state-law climate damages claims against Suncor and Exxon Mobil, and whether the Court has jurisdiction at all; then Johnson v. United States Congress (No. 25-735), on whether veterans can challenge a benefits law's constitutionality in federal district court. On October 6, Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee (No. 25-498) asks whether a lawsuit over underperforming funds in Intel's retirement plans, including its 401(k), must identify a 'meaningful benchmark'. On October 7, Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan (No. 25-579) asks whether the Air Force's application to renew a hazardous-waste permit on Guam can be challenged now, and whether environmental review had to come first. The federal government's lawyers argue against the side that sued in all four. Arguments begin at 10 a.m. Washington time, and the Court live-streams the audio.
Matched in article text