{"id":2605321,"date":"2026-05-21T05:28:02","date_gmt":"2026-05-21T09:28:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-major-supreme-court-decisions-remaining-for-this-term\/"},"modified":"2026-05-21T05:31:53","modified_gmt":"2026-05-21T09:31:53","slug":"the-major-supreme-court-decisions-remaining-for-this-term","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-major-supreme-court-decisions-remaining-for-this-term\/","title":{"rendered":"The major Supreme Court decisions remaining for this term"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">18<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fthe-major-supreme-court-decisions-remaining-for-this-term%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2605321&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The Supreme Court\u2019s current term is nearing its end as the justices consider major disputes that could be shaped by challenges tied to President Donald Trump and the upcoming midterm elections. From October 2025 to April 2026, the Court heard argument in 58 cases and still plans to issue decisions in more than two dozen more by late June. While it has already ruled in several high-profile matters,it still has a number of prominent cases pending,ranging from Trump\u2019s tariff and birthright citizenship actions to state rules restricting transgender athletes from competing in women\u2019s sports.<\/p>\n<p>Key unresolved cases highlighted include:<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; **Trump v. Slaughter**: whether the president can remove independent agency heads (like FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter) without cause.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; **NRSC v.FEC**: whether coordinated party-candidate spending limits violate First Amendment rights and could affect campaign finance spending ahead of the 2026 elections.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; **Little v. Hecox** and **West Virginia v. B.P.J.**: whether state bans on biological males competing in women\u2019s sports violate the Equal Protection clause and\/or Title IX.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; **Wolford v. Lopez**: whether Hawaii\u2019s rule restricting permit holders from carrying guns onto private property violates the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; **Trump v. Cook**: an emergency-docket fight over the standards for \u201ccause\u201d before a president can fire a Federal Reserve governor and whether firing should be allowed while the case is litigated.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; **United States v.Hemani**: a Second Amendment challenge to a federal ban on firearm possession by unlawful drug users, including marijuana users.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; **Watson v.RNC**: whether <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/nevada-allowed-to-continue-counting-late-arriving-ballots-judge-rules-2\/\" title=\"Nevada allowed to continue counting late-arriving ballots, judge ...\">late-arriving mail ballots<\/a> postmarked by Election Day can be counted under federal law, turning on what counts as \u201cElection Day.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; **Trump v. barbara**: whether Trump\u2019s executive order narrowing birthright citizenship for children of certain unauthorized or temporary-status parents conflicts with the 14th Amendment.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; **Mullin v. Doe** (and consolidated **Trump v.Moit**): whether Trump can end TPS protections for people from Haiti and Syria, and how much judicial review is available in immigration decisions.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; **Louisiana v. Callais**: a redistricting case already decided by the Court, raising the bar for certain race-based Voting Rights Act challenges; Louisiana\u2019s map was struck down on constitutional grounds.<\/p>\n<p>The term also includes at least one major conclusion already announced:<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; **Learning Resources v. Trump**: the Court struck down Trump\u2019s sweeping \u201cLiberation Day\u201d tariffs, ruling they exceeded the president\u2019s authority under the cited statute.<\/p>\n<p>looking ahead,the Court is expected to finish issuing rulings by late June\/early July,and its next term is scheduled to begin in October 2026,with arguments running into April 2027.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<article class=\"fn-body\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/section\/supreme-court\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/section\/supreme-court\/\">Supreme Court\u2019s<\/a> term is winding down after months of oral arguments in hotly contested cases, during a year when President <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/donald-trump\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"4\">Donald Trump<\/a> and the midterm elections loom large over some of the most closely watched cases.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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\u2019s tariffs and birthright citizenship order to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-decide-if-title-ix-protections-include-employees\/\" title=\"Supreme ... to decide if ... ... include employees\">state laws barring biological men<\/a> from women\u2019s sports.<\/p>\n<section class=\"explore-more-section\" id=\"wex-recommended-widget\">\n<div class=\"magazine-container single\">\n<h1 class=\"magazine-title mt-2\">Recommended Stories<\/h1>\n<p>             <i class=\"fa-solid fa-play icon\"><\/i>         <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-grid\">\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4572489\/supreme-court-does-title-ix-discrimination-protections-include-employees\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Supreme Court to decide if Title IX discrimination protections include employees<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4572406\/supreme-court-tosses-racial-redistricting-rulings-mississippi-north-dakota\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Supreme Court tosses racial redistricting rulings in Mississippi and North Dakota<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<div class=\"explore-card\">                         <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4571268\/clarence-thomas-very-dicey-threats-public-events\/?itm_source=parsely-api\">                             <\/p>\n<div class=\"explore-thumb-wrap\">                                                                                                                                  <\/div>\n<h3>Clarence Thomas says \u2018very dicey\u2019 threats make it hard for him to attend public events<\/h3>\n<p>                         <\/a>                     <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-trump-s-firing-power-trump-v-slaughter\">Trump\u2019s firing power: <em>Trump v. Slaughter<\/em><\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The president\u2019s firing ability is the question at the center of <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3907415\/trumps-firing-power-faces-major-test-at-the-supreme-court\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3907415\/trumps-firing-power-faces-major-test-at-the-supreme-court\/\">Trump v. Slaughter<\/a><\/em>  \u2014 specifically, whether he can dismiss independent agency heads in the executive branch without cause. The case stems from Trump\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<div class=\"article-paywall\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3908676\/supreme-court-grapples-executive-power-independent-agencies\/\">heard oral arguments<\/a> in the case on Dec. 8, 2025, during which a majority of the justices appeared open to affirming Trump\u2019s 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\u2019s lawyer would open the door to insulating independent agency heads from accountability if they decline to work toward the president\u2019s priorities.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-coordinated-political-party-candidate-spending-limits-nrsc-v-fec\">Coordinated political party-candidate spending limits: <em>NRSC v. FEC<\/em><\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Whether the Federal Election Commission\u2019s coordinated spending limits between political parties and candidates violate a party\u2019s First Amendment rights is at the center of the dispute of <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3909203\/supreme-court-consider-walking-back-campaign-spending-limits-further\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3909203\/supreme-court-consider-walking-back-campaign-spending-limits-further\/\">National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission<\/a><\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During oral arguments on Dec. 9, 2025, a majority of the high court appeared likely to side with the NRSC\u2019s view that the coordinated spending limits violate political parties\u2019 <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/first-amendment\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"881\">First Amendment<\/a> rights. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also expressed concern over political parties becoming weaker as a result of the high court\u2019s 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 <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3912342\/sonia-sotomayor-alludes-elon-musk-trump-administration-job-discussing-corruption\/\">could open the door<\/a> to more corruption and quid pro quos.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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. <\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-transgender-sports-cases-little-v-hecox-and-west-virginia-v-b-p-j\">Transgender sports cases: <em>Little v. Hecox<\/em> and <em>West Virginia v. B.P.J.<\/em><\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A pair of state laws barring biological men from women\u2019s sports are at the center of two cases the Supreme Court heard in January. In <em>Little v. Hecox<\/em>, Idaho\u2019s Fairness in Women\u2019s 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 <em>West Virginia v. B.P.J.<\/em>, West Virginia\u2019s Save Women\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During oral arguments, the justices asked questions about the <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4416613\/supreme-court-questions-biological-differences-womens-sports\/\">competitive advantage<\/a> 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 <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4415304\/supreme-court-defining-sex-transgender-sports-bans\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4415304\/supreme-court-defining-sex-transgender-sports-bans\/\">over the definition of sex<\/a>, and that lawyer pleaded with the high court not to define sex under the law when it rules in the case.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling in either case, but whatever the high court decides will have <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4408609\/pair-supreme-court-cases-put-title-ix-future-in-balance\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4408609\/pair-supreme-court-cases-put-title-ix-future-in-balance\/\">sweeping implications<\/a> for the future of Title IX and protections for women\u2019s sports in the country.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-hawaii-private-property-gun-restrictions-wolford-v-lopez\">Hawaii private property gun restrictions: <em>Wolford v. Lopez<\/em><\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Whether Hawaii\u2019s 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 <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/second-amendment\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"1043\">Second Amendment<\/a> is the center of the dispute in <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4422073\/hawaii-gun-rights-case-supreme-court-private-property-laws\/\">Wolford v. Lopez<\/a><\/em>. The case is one of two involving guns that the justices heard arguments in during their 2025-26 term.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4425712\/alito-accuses-hawaii-relegating-gun-rights-second-class-status\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4425712\/alito-accuses-hawaii-relegating-gun-rights-second-class-status\/\">oral arguments on Jan. 20<\/a>, a majority of the justices appeared deeply skeptical of Hawaii\u2019s defense of its sweeping gun law, with Justice Samuel Alito pointedly asserting to Hawaii\u2019s lawyer that their argument was \u201crelegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.\u201d Chief Justice John Roberts also added to the chorus of concern, saying it appeared Hawaii was treating the Second Amendment as a \u201cdisfavored right.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court will issue a ruling in the case in the coming weeks, marking its latest major gun ruling in recent years.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-lisa-cook-firing-trump-v-cook\">Lisa Cook firing: <em>Trump v. Cook<\/em><\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Trump\u2019s bid to fire Federal Reserve governor <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/lisa-cook\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"17633\">Lisa Cook<\/a> is at the center of a <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4426394\/trumps-battle-federal-reserve-faces-supreme-court-test\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4426394\/trumps-battle-federal-reserve-faces-supreme-court-test\/\">rare emergency docket case<\/a> 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\u00a0Director 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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During oral arguments on Jan. 21, the high court <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4426758\/supreme-court-worried-letting-trump-fire-lisa-cook-jeopardizes-federal-reserve-independence\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4426758\/supreme-court-worried-letting-trump-fire-lisa-cook-jeopardizes-federal-reserve-independence\/\">expressed concern<\/a> about the DOJ\u2019s argument that it had met the bar for the \u201ccause\u201d necessary to fire Cook, fearing the DOJ\u2019s definition could water down removal protections for members of the Fed, essentially making them fireable at will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling in the case, which will likely establish clear parameters for the burden of showing \u201ccause\u201d for a president to fire a member of the Fed.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-gun-rights-for-drug-users-united-states-v-hemani\">Gun rights for drug users: <em>United States v. Hemani<\/em><\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/ninth-circuit-grills-california-over-gun-ammo-background-check-law\/\" title=\"Ninth Circuit grills California over gun ammo background check ...\">federal law barring unlawful drug users<\/a> from possessing firearms, specifically a <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/marijuana\/\" type=\"post_tag\" id=\"115\">marijuana<\/a> user, is at the center of the dispute in <em>United States v. Hemani<\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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\u2019s ability to possess a firearm, appearing deeply skeptical of the legality of the sweeping federal law. He at one point asked if \u201cone [marijuana] gummy bear every other night\u201d would disqualify someone from being able to own a firearm.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A ruling in the case has yet to be released, but the Supreme Court\u2019s decision is likely to have wide ramifications for the gun rights of drug users, especially marijuana users, across the country.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-late-arriving-mail-ballots-watson-v-rnc\">Late-arriving mail ballots: <em>Watson v. RNC<\/em><\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The issue of whether <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/samuel-alito-concerned-late-arriving-ballot-laws-could-undermine-election-trust\/\" title=\"Samuel Alito concerned ... could undermine election trust\">state laws allowing mail ballots<\/a> that arrive after Election Day but are postmarked by Election Day to count violate federal law is at the center of the dispute of <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4495764\/supreme-court-debate-election-day-mail-ballots-case\/\">Watson v. Republican National Committee<\/a><\/em>. The key question at the center of the case is what \u201cElection Day\u201d means \u2014 whether it is the day a vote must be cast by, or the day the vote must be received by.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court heard <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4500536\/supreme-court-counting-late-mail-ballots-undermine-concept-election-day\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4500536\/supreme-court-counting-late-mail-ballots-undermine-concept-election-day\/\">oral arguments<\/a> 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\u00a0law, specifically with how defining \u201cElection Day\u201d by when voters make their decisions, rather than by when the state receives their ballots, could create a mess of other issues.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-birthright-citizenship-trump-v-barbara\">Birthright citizenship: <em>Trump v. Barbara<\/em><\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One of the most highly anticipated cases of the term, <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4509805\/birthright-citizenship-first-supreme-court-test-100-years\/\">Trump v. Barbara<\/a><\/em>, deals with whether Trump\u2019s executive order on birthright citizenship violates the 14th Amendment. In January 2025, Trump issued an order stating that birthright citizenship\u00a0does 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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During oral arguments in the case on April 1, the Justice Department <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4512165\/tough-questions-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4512165\/tough-questions-birthright-citizenship-supreme-court\/\">faced an array of tough questions<\/a> from a highly skeptical Supreme Court. Early in the arguments, Roberts questioned the Justice Department\u2019s use of \u201cquirky\u201d 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\u2019s arguments, as <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4512516\/trump-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4512516\/trump-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship\/\">Trump watched on<\/a> from the public gallery.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-trump-s-bid-to-end-tps-mullin-v-doe\">Trump\u2019s bid to end TPS: <em>Mullin v. Doe<\/em><\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Trump administration\u2019s bid to end temporary protected status for people from Haiti and Syria is the dispute at the center of the consolidated cases <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4545655\/trump-tps-immigration-crackdown-faces-supreme-court-test\/\"><em>Mullin v. Doe<\/em> and <em>Trump v. Moit<\/em><\/a>. The Immigration and Nationality Act includes a provision giving the homeland security secretary sole discretion over granting and ending TPS, noting that \u201cthere is no judicial review of any determination\u201d made by the secretary\u00a0\u201cwith respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation.\u201d Despite this, various courts have blocked bids to end TPS, claiming that the process for doing so was not properly followed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4547439\/supreme-court-seems-poised-allow-trump-end-tps-for-haiti-syria\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4547439\/supreme-court-seems-poised-allow-trump-end-tps-for-haiti-syria\/\">oral arguments<\/a> 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 \u201cblow a hole\u201d in the judicial review bar in immigration law.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court has yet to rule in the case. The high court\u2019s ruling over whether Trump may end TPS for\u00a0Haiti\u00a0and\u00a0Syria\u00a0will have sweeping effects on the administration\u2019s efforts to end similar temporary protections for people from various other countries, including Venezuela, South Sudan, and Somalia.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-race-based-redistricting-louisiana-v-callais\">Race-based redistricting: <em>Louisiana v. Callais<\/em><\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Whether Louisiana\u2019s 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 <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3849965\/supreme-court-kickstart-round-of-redistricting-louisiana\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3849965\/supreme-court-kickstart-round-of-redistricting-louisiana\/\">Louisiana v. Callais<\/a><\/em>  this term. <\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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\u2019s ruling in <em>Callais<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">During <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3851141\/brett-kavanaugh-questions-endpoint-race-based-redistricting-voting-rights-act\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3851141\/brett-kavanaugh-questions-endpoint-race-based-redistricting-voting-rights-act\/\">oral arguments<\/a> 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 \u201cendpoint\u201d should be for when race must no longer be considered in congressional redistricting. Indeed, the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling months later rewrote how VRA challenges may be brought.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4410470\/supreme-court-strikes-down-race-based-redistricting-map-in-louisiana\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4410470\/supreme-court-strikes-down-race-based-redistricting-map-in-louisiana\/\">issued its ruling<\/a> in the case on April 29, finding that Louisiana\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-trump-s-liberation-day-tariffs-learning-resources-v-trump\">Trump\u2019s \u2018Liberation Day\u2019 tariffs: <em>Learning Resources v. Trump<\/em><\/h2>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Trump\u2019s signature economic policy, his sweeping \u201cLiberation Day\u201d tariffs, were at the center of one of the most <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3873138\/trump-tariffs-case-latest-supreme-court-look-at-presidential-powers\/\">closely watched cases<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The high court heard <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/3876434\/supreme-court-president-economic-powers-foreign-policy-tariffs\/\">oral arguments<\/a> in the case on Nov. 5, 2025, and appeared deeply skeptical of the Justice Department\u2019s 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 \u201cgas-powered cars and auto parts\u201d under IEEPA based on the administration\u2019s theory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4409863\/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-sweeping-liberation-day-tariffs\/\" type=\"link\" id=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4409863\/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-sweeping-liberation-day-tariffs\/\">issued its ruling<\/a> in the case on Feb. 20, ruling 6-3 that the president\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/supreme-court\/4572489\/supreme-court-does-title-ix-discrimination-protections-include-employees\/\">SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF TITLE IX DISCRIMINATION PROTECTIONS INCLUDE EMPLOYEES<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The high court\u2019s next term is set to begin in October, with oral arguments scheduled between Oct. 5, 2026, and April 28, 2027.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court\u2019s term is winding down as Trump and midterms loom, with rulings pending in many major cases<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2638,"featured_media":2605322,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/AP26113736782480_90dc56.jpg?w=696","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[80047,36218,32314,32275,65148],"class_list":["post-2605321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-court-term","tag-legal-analysis","tag-major-decisions","tag-supreme-court","tag-u-s-law"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/AP26113736782480_90dc56.jpg?w=696","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2605321","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2638"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2605321"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2605321\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2605325,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2605321\/revisions\/2605325"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2605322"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2605321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2605321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2605321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}