Birthright citizenship, girls sports, the definition of Election Day, and other hot-button topics are on the line in upcoming Supreme Court decisions.
The court’s 2025–2026 term is expected to end in June with a series of rulings that could affect social issues and President Donald Trump’s agenda.
The last scheduled oral argument was held on April 29; the justices considered whether Trump wrongfully terminated deportation protections for thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals. That decision and a ruling on Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship could influence immigration policy for decades to come.
So far, the court has already issued opinions on Trump’s tariffs and redistricting. Its remaining decisions could change how elections are conducted, as well as alter the balance of power between Congress and the president.
Birthright Citizenship
A key part of Trump’s immigration agenda has been his attempt to limit who receives American citizenship. The 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Historically, the executive branch interpreted this amendment to grant citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants. Trump changed this interpretation on his first day in office, passing an executive order stating that the amendment applied only to children who had at least one parent with citizenship or lawful permanent residency.
Girls Sports
Another highly anticipated decision focuses on laws in Idaho and West Virginia preventing males from participating in girls and women’s sports. Federal appeals courts blocked those laws, stating that they conflict with another portion of the 14th Amendment known as the equal protection clause. That clause generally prohibits laws that classify or discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics.The appeals courts said the state laws conflict with that clause because they classify individuals on the basis of their sex and “transgender status.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also said West Virginia’s law violated Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. That law prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education.
Monsanto’s Weed Killer
Monsanto’s herbicide, known as Roundup, has cost the company millions of dollars following lawsuits alleging that one of its ingredients, glyphosate, increases cancer risk.Monsanto told the Supreme Court that the jury’s verdict was based on a faulty interpretation of the law. The jury said Monsanto was liable under a Missouri law that requires warnings for consumer products. Monsanto argued that the jury interpreted the law in a way that conflicted with another law passed at the federal level.
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision is expected to touch on a legal doctrine known as preemption, which holds that federal law takes precedence over state law when there is a conflict between the two. In this case, Monsanto said the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act should take precedence.
Trump’s Ability to Fire Bureaucrats
One of the main legal complaints leveled during Trump’s second administration is that he has fired high-level bureaucrats without good reason. Leaders of so-called independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), sued, alleging that Trump did not show the type of cause federal law requires of presidents when firing officials.Their eventual decision could overturn a 90-year-old precedent from Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. In that 1935 case, the Supreme Court held that President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrongly fired a former FTC commissioner and that Congress could restrict his ability to do so.
The Trump administration argues that the Constitution gives the president greater authority and that Congress cannot use laws such as the FTC Act to restrict his ability to remove bureaucrats.
Fed Independence
Like the FTC Act, another law, known as the Federal Reserve Act, states that presidents cannot remove high-level officials without cause. That was the law that Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook cited when she challenged Trump’s attempt to fire her last year.Trump removed Cook while citing allegations that she committed mortgage fraud, something she has denied. During oral argument in January, the Supreme Court wrestled with multiple questions: whether Trump gave Cook enough due process before firing her, how the firing would affect the economy, and how Trump’s view of his authority would affect the Federal Reserve’s independence.
Definition of ‘Election Day’
The 2020 presidential election reinvigorated debate over mail-in ballots, a controversial method of voting that Trump and others argue is vulnerable to fraud. Multiple states, including Mississippi, have allowed mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day as long as they are postmarked on or before that day.Trump and the Republican National Committee argue that that practice violates a federal law that defines Election Day as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.”
When the case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, reached the Supreme Court, the Trump administration supported the committee’s position.
“‘Election day’ was the day all voting needed to be completed; and the act of voting was not complete until a ballot had been officially received,” the Justice Department told the court.
Mississippi argues that the law simply requires that voters make their choice by Election Day, not that their ballots are counted on that day.
During oral argument in March, the justices seemed more likely to side with the committee.
Deportation Protections
The court’s most recent oral argument focused on the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of deportation protections for thousands of Haitians and Syrians. Temporary protected status prevents nationals of certain countries from being removed if conditions in their home countries would make returning unsafe.Under President Barack Obama, the department granted that status for Haiti, which was affected by the 2010 earthquake, and Syria, which has seen ongoing political turmoil and armed conflict.
Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem terminated those protections last year, prompting lawsuits and federal judges’ orders blocking those terminations.
Campaign Finance
How much protection does the First Amendment afford political parties when they spend money on campaigns? That is one of the questions the Supreme Court is expected to address in a case called National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Committee.The case originated with a lawsuit brought by then-Senate candidate JD Vance, who argued that Congress violated the First Amendment with the Federal Election Campaign Act. That law restricts how much political parties and candidates’ campaigns can coordinate their spending.
The Supreme Court upheld that restriction in 2001 on the basis that coordination opens a backdoor for corruption. In its upcoming decision, the court could maintain its previous position or overrule itself while siding with Republicans.
IQ in Death Penalty Cases
The Supreme Court held in 2002 that states could not execute criminals who were mentally or intellectually disabled. Doing so, a majority of the court said, would violate the Eighth Amendment’s bar on cruel and unusual punishment.When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reviewed the case, it said the margin of error could have meant that Smith’s actual IQ was below 70. The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on whether the 11th Circuit required too much certainty and should have upheld the man’s death sentence.
