The Supreme Court just kicked off a term that could dramatically expand religious liberty protections across the country—and the left isn’t going to like where it’s headed. In a series of three high-profile cases, the Court has the opportunity to clarify just how far the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause can go in shielding Americans from government overreach.

According to Thomas More Society attorney Michael McHale, the justices are poised to tackle issues that have been simmering for years—cases that strike at the heart of what it means to live out one’s faith in modern America. And from what we’ve seen so far, religious liberty might be on the verge of its biggest high court boost in decades.

The first case, heard Monday, centers on whether a Catholic charity in Wisconsin qualifies for a religious tax exemption. State officials claimed the organization doesn’t count because it’s not “primarily” religious, despite being part of a national Catholic network that serves communities in the name of faith. McHale warns that letting the state define how “religious” an organization must be sets a dangerous precedent: “Can states determine how religious an organization is in order to ultimately determine whether they qualify for a religious exemption?”

This echoes previous legal battles over the Obama-era HHS contraceptive mandate, where the government tried to force nuns to violate their religious beliefs. That case ended with a win for religious conscience—and this one could reaffirm that victory.

But the stakes don’t stop with tax policy. Two other cases now on the Supreme Court’s docket deal with religious freedom in education—both of which could send shockwaves through woke school districts.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the justices will decide whether Maryland public schools can force religious parents to expose their children to LGBTQ-themed storybooks, despite a state law that once allowed an opt-out. Officials initially respected parental rights, but abruptly reversed course—raising the question of whether the Constitution guarantees parents a religious exemption from progressive indoctrination.

McHale calls the Fourth Circuit’s decision—that parents faced no religious burden—”radical” and says the issue is urgent as gender and sexual ideology creep further into public classrooms.

Then there’s the blockbuster case out of Oklahoma, where a Catholic organization is attempting to launch the nation’s first religious charter school. If the Supreme Court sides with the school, it would mark a new chapter in school choice and a devastating blow to secular bureaucrats who believe religious institutions should be kept out of publicly funded education.

McHale says it’s a natural progression: “The Oklahoma charter school case seems to be a natural development from the religious school choice cases the Supreme Court’s dealt with over the last 10 or so years.”

This all comes against the backdrop of President Trump’s sweeping executive actions to dismantle progressive gender mandates in public institutions. Earlier this year, Trump signed orders banning federal agencies and schools from forcing Americans to use preferred pronouns or participate in gender ideology. That political momentum could ease the burden on religious Americans outside the courtroom—but these cases will decide what rights are protected inside it.

McHale is optimistic that Trump’s changes will begin reversing the tide. “The hope is Trump’s executive orders and the shifting political ends ease those burdens outside the courts,” he said. But legal precedent will still be critical—and that’s where this Supreme Court term could deliver lasting wins.

With rulings expected by June, Americans could soon see major decisions that affirm their right to live by faith without government interference. For the religious liberty movement—and the Constitution—it’s shaping up to be a term worth watching.