The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in cases over universal preschool discrimination, temporary immigrant workers and oil pipelines during its November argument session, The Center Square reported on Monday, October 26. Legal analysts cited in the report weighed in on the most high-profile cases of the sitting and how the justices are likely to debate them. These are hearings only — no ruling has been issued in any of the three cases, and a decision in each is expected by June 2027.
Colorado preschool: St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy (Nov. 3)
On Nov. 3, the court will hear St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, a case challenging the nondiscrimination agreements preschools must sign to receive public funds in Colorado. Since 2022, Colorado's universal preschool program has given students in select schools 15 hours per week of free education in the year before kindergarten. Schools must sign agreements not to deny families on the basis of sexual orientation, religious affiliation, income, race, disability or gender. Two Catholic schools sued after they were not approved for an exception, saying the agreement conflicts with Catholic teaching on same-sex marriage.
Source: The Center Square, Oct. 26, 2026
Lawyers for the parishes argued the state previously made exceptions for secular reasons and discriminated on the basis of religion by denying Catholics an exception. “Colorado doesn't disagree it is interfering with the religious exercise of parents and schools,” the parishes' lawyers wrote in a brief filed with the court. “Instead, it says it is perfectly fine to exclude Catholic preschools while letting in preschools preferring those with disabilities, limited income, or LGBTQ identity.” Thomas Berry, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies, said that divide in treatment is a central issue. Lawyers for Colorado argued the exceptions cannot be compared: “Preschools that prioritize children with disabilities and children from low-income families do not deny equal opportunity based on disability or income level in violation of UPK's statutory equal-opportunity requirements,” the state wrote.
Source: Party briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted by The Center Square, Oct. 26, 2026
Immigrant farm labour: Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards (Nov. 10)
On Nov. 10, the justices will weigh whether the executive branch can administer fines to a company that does not comply with immigrant labour standards. The case focuses on a $500,000 fine levied by the government against Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey farm that employed immigrants on H-2A temporary agricultural visas, after an investigation and hearing through the Department of Labor. An earlier Center Square report on the November docket said the Labor Department accused the farm of failing to provide adequate housing, meal plans, transportation and work hours for H-2A employees, and charged it hundreds of thousands of dollars in liabilities for the alleged violations.
Lawyers for the farm argued the dispute should be heard in a judicial court, not inside a presidential administration — Berry said the farm's position is that the case boils down to a contract dispute, which Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires judiciary courts to handle. Lawyers for the Department of Labor said employers using the H-2A program must comply with federal guidelines so American citizens are not disadvantaged, and wrote: “Administrative adjudications provide an efficient mechanism for ensuring that employers who participate in that vast program comply with those terms and conditions.” Berry said the case could have wider ramifications for how cases are adjudicated and predicted the justices will rule in favour of the administration's authority. That is an analyst's prediction, not a court finding.
Source: The Center Square, Oct. 26, 2026
Pipeline land: Hoffman v. WBI Energy Transmission (Nov. 9)
On Nov. 9, the court will hear Hoffman v. WBI Energy Transmission, challenging the purchase of land in North Dakota to develop an oil pipeline. Rancher Len Hoffman and other ranch owners said WBI Energy Transmission offered too low a rate for part of their land, and challenged the offer under North Dakota law, which requires attorneys' fees to be included in a compensation agreement where eminent domain is involved. Thomas Merrill, a law professor at Columbia University, said the arrangement is disadvantageous to owners whose property is condemned because they do not get full compensation after paying attorneys' fees, and he questioned whether the court can develop an entire eminent-domain jurisprudence under the takings clause. Awaaz Punjab will report the rulings when they are issued, expected by June 2027.