The Supreme Court’s term is winding down after months of oral arguments in hotly contested cases, during a year when President Donald Trump and the midterm elections loom large over some of the most closely watched cases.
The high court heard arguments in 58 cases from October 2025 through April 2026, and the justices are still set to issue rulings in more than two dozen cases by the end of June. Among the most closely watched cases this term, the Supreme Court has issued rulings in two and has yet to rule in the 10 remaining ones. The major cases this term range from Trump’s tariffs and birthright citizenship order to state laws barring biological men from women’s sports.
Trump’s firing power: Trump v. Slaughter
The president’s firing ability is the question at the center of Trump v. Slaughter — specifically, whether he can dismiss independent agency heads in the executive branch without cause. The case stems from Trump’s firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause. Slaughter filed a lawsuit against Trump, arguing her firing was illegal under the law establishing the Federal Trade Commission, while the Justice Department argued those for-cause protections are unconstitutional because they would unlawfully limit the president, as head of the executive branch, from firing someone who wields executive power.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on Dec. 8, 2025, during which a majority of the justices appeared open to affirming Trump’s view of presidential firing power, in line with two previous emergency docket rulings last year that allowed similar firings of independent agency heads in the interim. Several of the justices expressed concern that the argument pushed by Slaughter’s lawyer would open the door to insulating independent agency heads from accountability if they decline to work toward the president’s priorities.
The high court has yet to issue its ruling, but the forthcoming decision is expected to have significant implications for the power of the president.
Coordinated political party-candidate spending limits: NRSC v. FEC
Whether the Federal Election Commission’s coordinated spending limits between political parties and candidates violate a party’s First Amendment rights is at the center of the dispute of National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. The case is the latest challenge to FEC regulations on First Amendment grounds, with previous challenges successful in striking down other campaign finance regulations, thereby allowing an increasing flood of money to be pumped into elections each cycle.
During oral arguments on Dec. 9, 2025, a majority of the high court appeared likely to side with the NRSC’s view that the coordinated spending limits violate political parties’ First Amendment rights. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also expressed concern over political parties becoming weaker as a result of the high court’s previous decisions striking down campaign finance laws, and he questioned whether striking down these limits would help parties regain some of that power. Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern that striking down the coordinated spending limits could open the door to more corruption and quid pro quos.
The Supreme Court has yet to rule in the case, but its ruling could open the floodgates to additional spending ahead of the hotly contested midterm elections in November.
Transgender sports cases: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
A pair of state laws barring biological men from women’s sports are at the center of two cases the Supreme Court heard in January. In Little v. Hecox, Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act is at the center of the dispute, which is over whether the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In West Virginia v. B.P.J., West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act is at the center of the case, and the justices are weighing whether the state law violates either the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX.
During oral arguments, the justices asked questions about the competitive advantage that biological men have over biological women, and whether cross-sex hormones could suppress that advantage. The justices also questioned lawyers for one of the transgender students, a biological boy who identifies as a girl, challenging the West Virginia law over the definition of sex, and that lawyer pleaded with the high court not to define sex under the law when it rules in the case.
The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling in either case, but whatever the high court decides will have sweeping implications for the future of Title IX and protections for women’s sports in the country.
Hawaii private property gun restrictions: Wolford v. Lopez
Whether Hawaii’s sweeping gun law, which bars gun owners with a permit from bringing their firearms onto private properties unless they get permission from the property owner, violates the Second Amendment is the center of the dispute in Wolford v. Lopez. The case is one of two involving guns that the justices heard arguments in during their 2025-26 term.
During oral arguments on Jan. 20, a majority of the justices appeared deeply skeptical of Hawaii’s defense of its sweeping gun law, with Justice Samuel Alito pointedly asserting to Hawaii’s lawyer that their argument was “relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.” Chief Justice John Roberts also added to the chorus of concern, saying it appeared Hawaii was treating the Second Amendment as a “disfavored right.”
The Supreme Court will issue a ruling in the case in the coming weeks, marking its latest major gun ruling in recent years.
Lisa Cook firing: Trump v. Cook
Trump’s bid to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook is at the center of a rare emergency docket case that received oral arguments, which are typically reserved for merits docket cases. Trump attempted to fire Cook in August 2025, citing allegations by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte that, in 2021, Cook claimed two different homes as her primary residences to secure more generous loan terms. Pulte referred her to the Justice Department for mortgage fraud. A district court ruled in September that Cook could remain in her post while litigating the firing, and the case at the Supreme Court is over whether to allow her firing to take effect while that litigation continues.
During oral arguments on Jan. 21, the high court expressed concern about the DOJ’s argument that it had met the bar for the “cause” necessary to fire Cook, fearing the DOJ’s definition could water down removal protections for members of the Fed, essentially making them fireable at will.
The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling in the case, which will likely establish clear parameters for the burden of showing “cause” for a president to fire a member of the Fed.
Gun rights for drug users: United States v. Hemani
A federal law barring unlawful drug users from possessing firearms, specifically a marijuana user, is at the center of the dispute in United States v. Hemani. The challenge to the law, which claims it violates the Second Amendment, created unusual coalitions, with gun-rights groups siding with the drug user who brought the challenge, while the typically pro-gun Trump Justice Department has defended the gun law and received support from various anti-gun groups.
The Supreme Court held oral arguments in the case on March 2, with Justice Neil Gorsuch asking the DOJ how much regular unlawful drug use would be needed to take away someone’s ability to possess a firearm, appearing deeply skeptical of the legality of the sweeping federal law. He at one point asked if “one [marijuana] gummy bear every other night” would disqualify someone from being able to own a firearm.
A ruling in the case has yet to be released, but the Supreme Court’s decision is likely to have wide ramifications for the gun rights of drug users, especially marijuana users, across the country.
Late-arriving mail ballots: Watson v. RNC
The issue of whether state laws allowing mail ballots that arrive after Election Day but are postmarked by Election Day to count violate federal law is at the center of the dispute of Watson v. Republican National Committee. The key question at the center of the case is what “Election Day” means — whether it is the day a vote must be cast by, or the day the vote must be received by.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 23, where most of the justices seemed ready to side with the RNC and strike down late-arriving ballot laws. The high court appeared uneasy with the implications of the law, specifically with how defining “Election Day” by when voters make their decisions, rather than by when the state receives their ballots, could create a mess of other issues.
The high court has yet to rule in the major election law case, but once the justices do issue their ruling, it is expected to have significant effects on voting laws in the 14 states that accept late-arriving mail ballots.
Birthright citizenship: Trump v. Barbara
One of the most highly anticipated cases of the term, Trump v. Barbara, deals with whether Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship violates the 14th Amendment. In January 2025, Trump issued an order stating that birthright citizenship does not extend to children born in the U.S. to parents who are both in the country illegally or on a temporary basis, such as on a visa. The executive order faced a litany of lawsuits before making its way to the Supreme Court this term.
During oral arguments in the case on April 1, the Justice Department faced an array of tough questions from a highly skeptical Supreme Court. Early in the arguments, Roberts questioned the Justice Department’s use of “quirky” examples of people excluded from birthright citizenship, such as the children of foreign diplomats, to justify excluding broad groups of people, such as illegal immigrants. Most of the justices appeared unconvinced by the DOJ’s arguments, as Trump watched on from the public gallery.
The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling in the case, but the forthcoming ruling will likely either have wide ramifications for how birthright citizenship is understood under the 14th Amendment or largely maintain the status quo.
Trump’s bid to end TPS: Mullin v. Doe
The Trump administration’s bid to end temporary protected status for people from Haiti and Syria is the dispute at the center of the consolidated cases Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Moit. The Immigration and Nationality Act includes a provision giving the homeland security secretary sole discretion over granting and ending TPS, noting that “there is no judicial review of any determination” made by the secretary “with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation.” Despite this, various courts have blocked bids to end TPS, claiming that the process for doing so was not properly followed.
During oral arguments on April 29, the high court appeared ready to give the administration the green light to end TPS for Haiti and Syria, expressing deep skepticism toward the arguments of lawyers seeking to keep the temporary status alive. Alito expressed concern that affirming that judges can review parts of the process to end TPS could “blow a hole” in the judicial review bar in immigration law.
The Supreme Court has yet to rule in the case. The high court’s ruling over whether Trump may end TPS for Haiti and Syria will have sweeping effects on the administration’s efforts to end similar temporary protections for people from various other countries, including Venezuela, South Sudan, and Somalia.
Race-based redistricting: Louisiana v. Callais
Whether Louisiana’s creation of a second black-majority congressional district in compliance with a federal court order violated the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments was the dispute at the center of the rearguments in Louisiana v. Callais this term.
The case was expected to have widespread implications for redistricting, specifically with the parameters for race-based legal challenges of congressional maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Minority-majority districts mandated under the VRA gave Democrats several congressional seats in Republican strongholds in the South, but many of those districts are now at risk due to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Callais.
During oral arguments on Oct. 15, 2025, a majority of the justices appeared likely to rewrite the rules on how VRA challenges to redistricting on racial discrimination grounds could be brought. Kavanaugh had questioned when the “endpoint” should be for when race must no longer be considered in congressional redistricting. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s ruling months later rewrote how VRA challenges may be brought.
The Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case on April 29, finding that Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second black-majority district was unconstitutional. The 6-3 majority ruling, penned by Alito, said that states that have been forced by courts or litigation threats to draw districts based on race would now have significantly more freedom to redraw those maps without prioritizing racial outcomes. The ruling by the high court raised the bar for when the Voting Rights Act actually requires race-based line-drawing.
Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs: Learning Resources v. Trump
Trump’s signature economic policy, his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs, were at the center of one of the most closely watched cases of the term. The Supreme Court took up a challenge to the global tariffs, looking at whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gave the president the power to levy them.
The high court heard oral arguments in the case on Nov. 5, 2025, and appeared deeply skeptical of the Justice Department’s assertion that Trump had the power to levy the sweeping tariffs. One of the key moments came when Gorsuch asked the DOJ a hypothetical question about whether it would be legal for a future president to declare a climate emergency and attempt to impose a 50% tariff on “gas-powered cars and auto parts” under IEEPA based on the administration’s theory.
The Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case on Feb. 20, ruling 6-3 that the president’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful. Roberts wrote the majority opinion, finding that the law Trump cited to impose his tariffs on most countries, along with Canada, Mexico, and China over the fentanyl crisis, did not confer the sweeping power he claimed it did. The ruling was the first major loss for the president at the Supreme Court during his second term.
SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF TITLE IX DISCRIMINATION PROTECTIONS INCLUDE EMPLOYEES
The Supreme Court’s current term is set to end in late June or early July, by which time the justices will have issued rulings in all the cases they heard arguments in during the term.
The high court’s next term is set to begin in October, with oral arguments scheduled between Oct. 5, 2026, and April 28, 2027.