Supreme Court oral arguments will include three newly granted cases early next year, covering a religious zoning dispute, the Trump administration’s detention of undocumented immigrants apprehended within the United States without a bond hearing, and the scope of a federal law protecting former spouses of U.S. servicemembers.
The additions appeared in an orders list issued after the justices’ Sept. 28 conference, the first regular meeting since the summer recess. More orders from that conference are scheduled for release on Monday, Oct. 5, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, shortly before the justices convene for the first arguments of the 2026-27 term.
Supreme Court oral arguments on immigration detention
The justices agreed to review Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, a case testing the administration’s policy of holding noncitizens arrested within the country without bond hearings during removal proceedings. The policy relies on a provision of federal immigration law stating that noncitizens “shall be detained” for a removal proceeding if an examining officer determines they are “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” to the United States. Until last year, that provision had not been applied to people long present in the country, who were instead detained under a separate statute that allows release on a monetary bond or conditional parole.
Trial judges around the country have repeatedly ruled against the mandatory detention guidelines since they took effect last year, according to a public analysis reporting more than 9,300 adverse rulings. Federal appeals courts, however, have split on the policy’s legality, a factor that often prompts Supreme Court review.
After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and others ruled against the government, the administration sought review and urged the justices to take a different petition, Putra v. Lopez-Campos, as a cleaner vehicle. The court granted review on the issue but selected Rhoney instead.
Supreme Court oral arguments on religious land use
In Missionaries of St. John the Baptist v. Frederic, the court will again consider the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, enacted in 2000 to protect religious exercise for prisoners and for religious entities or individuals challenging land-use regulations. The Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, a nonprofit, seek to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary, with a plaza, walking path, and retaining wall, next to Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church in northern Kentucky.
The group applied for a permit and variances because the site lies in a residential zone with strict limits on nonresidential construction. The local zoning board approved the plan the following month.
Neighbors Joel and Elizabeth Frederic, who live across the street and raised concerns about traffic, challenged the approval in state court. They argued the board misapplied local ordinances and that the project was not permissible under current zoning rules.
The Missionaries argued that denying the permit would violate RLUIPA, which bars governments from imposing land-use regulations that substantially burden religious exercise without a compelling interest, and from treating religious uses less favorably than comparable secular uses.
A state trial court upheld the board’s decision, allowing the project to proceed. An intermediate appellate court reversed, concluding the board exceeded its authority and that a denial would not violate RLUIPA. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed, holding there was no RLUIPA violation because religious and nonreligious projects were subject to the same rules and because a smaller shrine could be built on a different portion of the property.
The Missionaries petitioned for Supreme Court review in March, asserting ongoing confusion in lower courts about how to apply RLUIPA. The Frederics responded that while there may be “minor variations” in how courts interpret the statute, there is no indication the outcome would change in a different forum.
Supreme Court oral arguments on military divorce benefits
In Marschner v. Marschner, the justices will address divorce courts’ authority to enforce settlement provisions involving military benefits. Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act, retirement pay based on service time may be divided in a divorce, but disability pay and amounts waived to receive disability benefits may not be divided.
Nine years ago, in Howell v. Howell, the Supreme Court held that when a former spouse had a right to half of a veteran’s retirement pay, a later waiver of retirement pay to obtain disability benefits barred a state court from ordering compensation for the lost share.
The case now before the court presents a different posture. The former spouses agreed in their divorce settlement that the veteran would compensate his ex-wife if he later received disability payments, which would reduce retirement pay. The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that this provision was unenforceable under federal law. The ex-wife sought review, and the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.