As voters prepare to focus on ballots and vote tallies Tuesday, the Supreme Court will open the morning with a dispute involving Colorado’s universal preschool program. Catholic schools argue that the program violates their rights because it does not exempt them from serving LGBTQ families.

Colorado says its policy “requires all preschools — secular and religious alike — to deliver publicly-funded services without excluding families based on protected-class status.” The hearing in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy could reveal whether the justices will continue their pattern of endorsing religious rights or make this case an exception.

The court otherwise had a relatively quiet week through Friday afternoon. Its most significant move came Tuesday through a shadow docket order involving Texas, the federal government, immigration policy and accusations of legal coordination.

The justices rejected an application from Centro Legal de la Raza and cities led by Democrats with large immigrant populations. The applicants had urged the court to stop what they described as “egregious collusion” between Texas and the federal government.

Texas challenged a rule from the Biden era that gave immigration judges discretion to pause removal proceedings. The discretion was intended to promote efficiency or protect due process rights, according to the account of the dispute.

When Texas brought the case against the Trump administration, the administration immediately joined the state in a motion opposing the rule. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor accepted that arrangement and vacated the rule nationwide.

No justice publicly dissented from the order denying the application filed by the legal aid group and Baltimore, Maryland, Columbus, Ohio, and New Haven, Connecticut. Those challengers warned the Supreme Court about the “collusion that infected this suit from its inception.”

They also warned that allowing the deal to remain in place would mean that “such collusive suits will surely proliferate further.” With the court refusing to intervene, the legal arrangement survives, along with the challengers’ concerns about what could follow.

President Donald Trump also received encouraging news in a separate matter on his personal docket. The court ordered Hillary Clinton to respond to Trump’s attempt to revive a civil lawsuit against her and other defendants.

Clinton and her civil codefendants had initially waived their right to oppose Trump’s petition, apparently hoping the justices would deny it without further proceedings. Trump claimed in the lawsuit that they conspired before the 2016 election to “weave a false narrative” that his campaign colluded with Russia.

The court’s request for a response indicates that at least one justice wants to hear from Clinton before deciding what to do with Trump’s petition. It does not necessarily mean the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case, which lower courts have rejected.

Four justices are required to grant review. The response request nevertheless gives Trump some hope while the court considers whether to add the appeal to its growing docket later this year.

Another dispute that may attract the justices’ attention concerns whether the Trump administration has properly allowed lawyers to lead federal prosecutors’ offices without Senate confirmation. The latest lower court ruling against the administration arrived Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright ruled that Trump’s chosen top prosecutor for the Los Angeles district had been “unlawfully serving.” Seabright, an appointee of President George W. Bush, noted that the government already had petitions pending before the Supreme Court involving the underlying dispute.

The Justice Department is asking the court to address how federal vacancies law should be interpreted. It has argued that lower court rulings have “cast a pall over prosecutions in 14 judicial districts nationwide.”

The Supreme Court could step into that dispute later in the term, although the justices retain discretion over whether and when to act. That uncertainty leaves another consequential administration fight waiting at the courthouse door.

The court itself is not on the midterm ballot, but the Senate’s resulting composition will determine what kind of justices, if any, can fill vacancies that emerge. Justice Samuel Alito has said he intends to remain through at least the current court term, which would keep him in place until after the new Senate is seated.

If Democrats win Senate control Tuesday, speculation could continue over whether Alito or Justice Clarence Thomas might immediately retire while Trump still has a Senate controlled by Republicans. Both have suggested otherwise, but the election still places the court’s future effectively before voters.