The U.S. Supreme Court's latest term is here-and includes cases that will have important implications for 401(k) plan providers, energy companies, and retail investors hoping to invest in private equity and alternative assets.

The court will begin hearing oral arguments on Monday. Historically, the court has issued its first opinions of a new term a month later in November, though it often waits to decide the biggest cases until late June, before it breaks for the summer.

Several of the marquee cases this session pertain to immigration policy, including what rights undocumented immigrants have when the Trump administration wants to deport them to non-native countries or hold them indefinitely during immigration proceedings. Other cases could affect investors more directly.

Here are three cases worth watching.

ExxonMobil, Suncor Energy, and Climate Change

Right out of the gate, the court on Oct. 5 will hear arguments in Suncor Energy (USA) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County.

In 2018, the city and county of Boulder, Colo., sued Suncor and ExxonMobil in state court over the companies' alleged role in climate change. They didn't ask for specific damages, but have separately said they expect their communities to spend upward of $100 million in the coming decades to respond to climate change.

Suncor and ExxonMobil in legal filings have said that state litigation happening across the country could threaten the industry with "potentially enormous judgments" and that federal law precludes individual localities from asserting damages from emissions happening elsewhere.

"Boulder, Colorado, cannot make energy policy for the entire country," attorneys for Suncor and ExxonMobil wrote in their petition.

The Colorado Supreme Court allowed the case to proceed under state law-and the Supreme Court is deciding, among other issues, whether federal law prevents the case from being heard in state court.

State and local governments have brought dozens of similar cases throughout the country-in part because the federal government has pulled back on efforts to limit climate change under the Trump administration. A ruling in favor of Boulder "could open greater liability risks for energy companies in state courts," analysts for Beacon Policy Advisors wrote in a research note last week.

401(k)s and Private-Equity Funds

The justices will hear arguments on Oct. 6 in Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee.

After the 2008 financial crisis, Intel's fiduciaries rebuilt funds in its 401(k) plan to minimize volatility, a move that included adding holdings in hedge funds and private-equity funds. The ensuing bull market left the newly-designed funds behind many investors who invested in funds that didn't include those alternative investments-and now some of the plan's investors, led by former Intel employees Winston Anderson and Christopher Sulyma, are suing.

The Supreme Court case is focused on whether the plaintiffs need to compare the funds in the Intel plan to a benchmark that includes those alternatives. But more broadly, the case could make it easier or harder for 401(k) investors to sue their plan fiduciaries as companies consider bringing more private funds into their plans. If the plaintiffs win, companies could be more hesitant to let private funds into their plans, which would be a blow to companies like Apollo Global Management and Blackstone.

In their filings, Intel's fiduciaries have said that the portfolio redesign was to mitigate risk rather than maximize returns, and that they "repeatedly disclosed" to investors that their returns during a bull market would underperform stock-heavy funds and carry higher fees.

That's in part why the American Investment Council and Managed Funds Association, the main trade groups for private funds and hedge funds, filed a brief in support of Intel's fiduciaries. The associations' brief noted that unlike defined-benefit pensions, defined-contribution plans like 401(k)s do not usually include funds with investments in alternative assets.

"The main explanation for the disparity between defined-benefit and defined-contribution plans' use of alternative assets is unwarranted litigation risk," the associations wrote.

The Trump administration in the past year has made its own push to open up 401(k) plans to alternative assets, and the Solicitor General is appearing in the case in Intel's support. Some investor advocacy groups are supporting the plaintiffs.

Apple's Epic Court Battle Continues

Though an oral argument isn't yet scheduled, the Supreme Court later this term is likely to hear Apple Inc. v. Epic Games Inc., the latest chapter in the long-running dispute between the iPhone juggernaut and the maker of the popular videogame Fortnite.

The origin of the lawsuit dates all the way back to 2020. Epic that year sued Apple after the company removed Fortnite from its app store in retaliation for Epic directing customers around its in-app payment system, which yields Apple a commission.

Epic sued on antitrust grounds, but Apple prevailed on most of the claims. The judge did, however, force the company to allow apps to steer customers to other payment methods. Apple complied but still tried to collect a 27% fee on those transactions, instead of 30%, and gave users warnings discouraging them from taking the alternative options.

The lower-court judge held Apple in civil contempt of violating her injunction, a decision that the appeals court upheld. The Supreme Court will decide whether the company can be held in contempt for violating the "spirit" of an injunction, even if the injunction didn't specifically bar its conduct.

In its petition, Apple argued that the Supreme Court shouldn't allow it to be held in contempt, given that the original injunction didn't specifically prohibit it from charging the fees or giving the user warnings. Epic in its response described Apple's workarounds as "evasion and defiance" to the earlier court decisions.