Fall has begun, and impeachment is in the air in Washington, D.C.

The news is all about Congress and President Trump. The former seems bent on impeaching the latter in a saga that promises much political theater and plenty of partisan fireworks. But in the midst of the partisan mayhem, we should spare a moment to focus on our federal government’s third branch: the judiciary. It has fallen under the radar that the next Supreme Court term commences on Oct. 7. Coming Supreme Court decisions may not rise to impeachment levels of excitement. But don’t let that fool you, this one will be big.

Last year, very few Supreme Court cases caught national attention, with only perhaps the census case gaining some significant coverage. Yet this term, the docket is rife with cases of massive consequence.

First, the Court will take up important litigation regarding workplace protections for the gay and transgender communities, a case concerning Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Originating out of Michigan, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC concerns whether Title VII as written protects transgender persons from discrimination in the workplace under its protections for “sex.”

Another, Bostock v. Clayton County, asks whether the same law requires similar safeguards based on sexual orientation. With the Court’s punt on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in 2018, these cases will be the first to begin sifting the implications of the Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex marriage. The trajectory they set may shape the future of these kinds of cases for decades.

Next, the Court might take up a Second Amendment case for the first time since 2010.

In 2010, the justices ruled that the right to bears arms applied to the states. Since then, they have done little to clarify the extent of the right or the permissibility of governmental regulations. Now, that could change.

In the case the Court will hear, New York City banned transporting handguns to any shooting range or home outside city limits. But the city has since changed the law in an attempt to get the Court to drop the case. We will see if the Court does so. If not, we may finally get more guidance on the judiciary’s reading of the individual right to own firearms.

Beyond these issues, the Court also will consider another case regarding religion, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The state of Montana has a “Blaine Amendment” that forbids taxpayer dollars from going to religious private schools. Due to that law, Montana barred students from using a tax credit scholarship program for religious schooling. The Supreme Court will determine whether doing so violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses as well as the Equal Protection Clause.

If these major cases weren’t enough, immigration, too, will make a big appearance before the justices.

In Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, the Court will consider the legality of the Trump Administration’s rescinding of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, President Obama’s controversial program deferring deportation for many illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. In addition to its policy implications, this case will say much about the limits the Court will place on executive power.

We know that the national gaze currently rests on our legislative and executive branches. Yet spare a glance or two for the Supreme Court between now and late June. It will be a term to remember.

Adam Carrington is an assistant professor of politics at Hillsdale College.