The U.S. Supreme Court has now entered the final stretch of its 2025–2026 term. The oral arguments have all been heard, and the merits cases have all been submitted. What’s left now is the writing and announcing of all of the remaining opinions. We’ll get those opinions sometime later this month or next, as the Court typically wraps everything up by the end of June, just in time for a nice summer holiday.
So what’s left? Here are 11 big cases that I’ll be watching out for in the weeks ahead.
You’re reading Injustice System from Damon Root and Reason. Get more of Damon’s commentary on constitutional law and American history.
Immigration: There are two notable immigration cases still to be decided. First, in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court is weighing whether asylum seekers who present themselves at the U.S. border may be lawfully turned away or whether they must instead be inspected by immigration officials and entered into the asylum system for further processing. Second, in Mullin v. Doe, the Court will determine whether the Trump administration improperly removed the temporary protected status (TPS) of Syrian and Haitian nationals. The TPS program permits qualifying foreigners to remain in the U.S. because it would be too risky for them to return to their home countries.
Guns: There are also two major gun cases still to be decided. First, Wolford v. Lopez asks whether Hawaii violated the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms when it told licensed concealed carry permit holders that they must obtain the express permission of the property owner before they may carry a handgun on private property that is open to the public. Second, in United States v. Hemani, the justices are considering whether a federal law that prohibits illegal drug users from having guns violates the Second Amendment.
Transgender athletes: The Supreme Court heard back-to-back oral arguments in January in a pair of cases that each involve a government ban on transgender women and girls competing in women’s and girls’ sports. The question presented to the Court in the first one, Little v. Hecox, is “whether laws that seek to protect women’s and girls’ sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The question presented to the Court in the second one, West Virginia v. B.J.P., is “whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.”
Presidential control over federal agencies: There are also two huge cases that fall within this broad category, but they pose quite different questions. First, in Trump v. Slaughter, the question is whether President Donald Trump may fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for purely political reasons, rather than “for cause.” There happens to be a 1935 SCOTUS precedent that says the president may not fire an FTC commissioner for purely political reasons, so what this case is effectively about is whether that precedent should be overruled, limited, or left standing (and thus enforced against Trump). The case of Trump v. Cook, on the other hand, asks whether Trump’s ostensible “for cause” firing of Lisa Cook from her position as a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors actually satisfied the terms of the “for cause” requirement in federal law, or whether it was really just a pretext designed to cover up Trump’s illegal political rationale for firing her.
Birthright citizenship: Acting via executive order, the president has purported to deny the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship to children whose parents are illegal immigrants or lawfully present temporary visitors. Trump v. Barbara asks whether that executive order is unconstitutional.
Mail-in ballots: The Constitution says that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” The case of Watson v. Republican National Committee asks whether a Mississippi law that allows the counting of mail-in ballots that were sent by election day but were not received until after election day runs afoul of the federal law that established a uniform national date for federal elections.
Fourth Amendment searches and “geofence warrants”: The case of Chatrie v. United States originated when law enforcement officials told Google to search the location histories of all of its users in order to determine which users were present in the vicinity of a bank robbery. The Supreme Court is tasked with determining what the Fourth Amendment actually permits in such cases.
In sum, we’ll soon get a heap of Supreme Court decisions on a range of contentious issues. Stay tuned.
