A Consequential Docket
The Supreme Court's docket through the 2028 term includes cases that will shape American law and policy for decades. From the constitutionality of social media regulation to the scope of executive war powers, the Court is addressing questions that sit at the intersection of technology, civil liberties, and government authority.
The Court's conservative 6-3 majority continues to define the jurisprudential direction, though the specific lineup varies by issue area. The most consequential cases often produce unexpected coalitions that defy simple ideological categorization.
Social Media and the First Amendment
The Court has accepted multiple cases addressing government regulation of social media platforms. At stake is whether platforms have First Amendment rights to moderate content, whether government communications with platforms constitute unconstitutional censorship, and whether state laws mandating content neutrality survive constitutional scrutiny.
These cases will establish the fundamental legal framework for online speech regulation. A ruling that platforms have broad First Amendment editorial rights would limit government regulatory power. A ruling that platforms are more like common carriers would open the door to content neutrality mandates.
AI and Automated Decision-Making
The Court is expected to address AI-related legal questions, though the specific vehicle remains uncertain. Cases involving algorithmic bias in hiring, AI-generated content and copyright, and automated decision-making in criminal justice are working their way through lower courts.
Our prediction market assigns a 35% probability to the Supreme Court ruling on a major AI case before 2028. This reflects the typical multi-year timeline of cases reaching the Court combined with the rapid proliferation of AI-related litigation in lower courts.
Executive War Powers
The Iran conflict has revived fundamental questions about executive war powers that the Court has historically avoided. Legal challenges to the scope of executive military authority could force the Court to address the tension between Congressional war powers and executive Commander-in-Chief authority.
The Court has been reluctant to intervene in war powers disputes, traditionally treating them as political questions. However, the scale and duration of the Iran conflict may create a case that the Court cannot avoid.
Second Amendment Expansion
Following its landmark Bruen decision, the Court continues to evaluate firearms regulation cases under its new historical-tradition framework. Several cases could further expand Second Amendment protections, with implications for state and local gun control measures.
Ethics and Legitimacy
The Court itself has become a subject of political controversy, with declining public approval and ongoing debates about ethics reform. The Court's institutional legitimacy depends on public confidence in its impartiality, a confidence that recent polling suggests is eroding.