by Just the News
Perhaps no case this term has attracted more public attention than the challenge to Trump’s executive order purporting to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully present or on temporary visas.
The Supreme Court has been busy this term, issuing dozens of
opinions, but it appears the justices are saving the best for last.
The court’s most closely watched cases remain undecided as the term
draws to a close, with 20 outstanding opinions still to come on some of
the most consequential issues of the day: presidential removal
authority, campaign finance regulations, immigration policy, election
law, and transgender participation in school sports.
Trump v. Slaughter: Presidential Removal Authority
One of the remaining cases, Trump v. Slaughter, concerns whether the president may remove members of certain independent federal agencies without cause.
The dispute arose after President Trump removed Rebecca Slaughter, a
Democratic commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Slaughter
argues that federal law permits removal of FTC commissioners only for
specified causes, while the administration contends that such
restrictions unconstitutionally limit the president’s executive
authority.
The stakes extend well beyond the FTC. If the high court sides with
the administration, it could effectively gut the independence of
numerous independent agencies including the National Labor Relations
Board and the Federal Trade and Securities and Exchange commissions.
Trump v. Cook: Federal Reserve Board Member Removal
In a similar case, Trump v. Cook, the Court is considering whether the president lawfully removed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
The Federal Reserve Act provides that members of the Board of
Governors may be removed only “for cause.” Trump fired Cook in August
2025, with the administration pointing to allegations – disputed by Cook
– that she had misrepresented her residency on a mortgage application
years before her appointment. Lower courts blocked the removal, and the
Supreme Court took up the case on an expedited basis.
During oral arguments, the court appeared skeptical of Cook’s
position, with several justices questioning whether courts could even
review the president’s removal decisions in this context.
NRSC v. FEC: Campaign Finance Limits
Legal scholars have described NRSC v. FEC as potentially the most significant campaign finance ruling since Citizens United v. FEC in 2010.
The case, brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee
along with its House counterpart and originally championed by then-Sen.
JD Vance, challenges Federal Election Commission regulations that cap
the amount political parties can spend in coordination with their own
candidates.
The plaintiffs argue that the restrictions violate the First
Amendment by limiting political parties’ ability to support their
candidates. The Federal Election Commission maintains that the limits
help prevent circumvention of contribution restrictions and reduce the
risk of corruption.
The case has attracted significant attention because of its potential implications for federal campaign finance law.
Watson v. Republican National Committee: When Votes Count
With the midterm elections approaching in November, Watson v. Republican National Committee carries immediate significance.
The case challenges a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to
be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within
five business days afterward. Republican leaders argue this so-called
“grace period” violates federal statutes establishing a single national
Election Day.
The ruling could set a de facto national standard for mail-in voting,
potentially invalidating similar grace-period laws in multiple states.
Since 2020, debates over mail ballot deadlines have become a flashpoint
in election litigation, and a decision here could reshape the rules of
the road for the November elections, with almost no time for states to
adjust.
Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.: Transgender Athletes
The court is also poised to decide a pair of landmark Title IX cases involving transgender girls and women in school sports.
Little v. Hecox involves an Idaho law banning transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams, while West Virginia v. B.P.J.
raises similar questions from that state. The cases present the court
with a direct question about Title IX: Do state laws categorically
excluding transgender females from women’s sports violate the federal
statute?
The cases have drawn intense advocacy from both sides, with dozens of
states filing amicus briefs. A ruling is expected to have sweeping
national implications, potentially determining whether transgender
athletes across all 50 states can participate in school sports
consistent with their gender identity, or whether states have broad
latitude to set their own rules.
Trump v. Barbara: Birthright Citizenship at the Crossroads
Perhaps no case before the court this term has attracted more public attention than Trump v. Barbara,
the challenge to Trump’s executive order purporting to deny birthright
citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are
unlawfully present or on temporary visas. The order, signed on
Inauguration Day 2025, targeted a right that the 14th Amendment has been
widely understood to guarantee since the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
The case was argued on April 1, 2026, and the president himself attended.
Several justices pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer on how the
executive branch could unilaterally reinterpret a constitutional
provision that courts have consistently applied for more than a
century.
The phrase at issue – “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – has
long been understood to cover virtually all children born on U.S. soil,
and a majority appeared skeptical of the administration’s effort to
narrow it. But in an era of legal surprises, few are willing to count
the government out entirely.
Mullin v. Miot: The Fate of Hundreds of Thousands
Argued in late April, the consolidated cases Mullin v. Dahlia Doe and Trump v. Miot
will determine whether the administration lawfully revoked Temporary
Protected Status for roughly 350,000 Haitian nationals and 6,100 Syrian
nationals currently living in the United States.
Such protection is granted to individuals from countries experiencing
armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions
that make return unsafe. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi
Noem terminated both designations, concluding that conditions had
changed sufficiently to justify removal.
During oral arguments, several conservative justices focused on
whether federal courts have any power to review TPS termination
decisions at all, a position that, if adopted, would effectively bar
judicial oversight of future decisions affecting more than a million
immigrants currently living under the program.
Mullin v. Al Otro Lado: The Right to Seek Asylum
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the court is weighing a challenge
to the government's now-defunct “metering” policy, under which Customs
and Border Protection officers physically turned away asylum seekers at
ports of entry, requiring them to wait, sometimes indefinitely, on the
Mexican side of the border before being permitted to present themselves
for inspection.
The policy was declared unlawful by the Ninth Circuit, but the Trump
administration asked the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling.
The question is whether asylum seekers who have reached a port of
entry but have not yet physically crossed onto U.S. soil have “arrived
in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and
Nationality Act – and therefore cannot be turned away without
processing. The ruling could shape the legal architecture of border
enforcement for years to come.
The Retirement Question Hanging Over Everything
As if the opinions themselves were not enough, the term may conclude
with an even larger bombshell: a retirement announcement from one or
more sitting justices.
Speculation has swirled for months around Justices Samuel Alito, 76,
and Clarence Thomas, who turns 78 later this month – the court's two
oldest conservatives.
Each has served for decades, and with a Republican president and a
GOP-controlled Senate in place, some Republicans have publicly urged
both men to step down while a sympathetic administration can confirm
their replacements. Trump has indicated that he is prepared to fill
vacancies if they arise.
Yet the retirement picture remains murky. Sources described as close
to Alito have told reporters he is not planning to step down. And
Alito’s forthcoming memoir – due out in October, around the start of the
next term – has been read by some observers as a sign he intends to
stay. Thomas, for his part, has indicated in various settings that he
has no plans to retire.
A retirement announcement before the November elections, which could
result in Democrats take control of the Senate from Republicans, would
set off one of the most consequential confirmation battles in modern
history.
Looking Ahead
The court has a busy month ahead, with sweeping decisions on
executive power, election administration, campaign finance, immigration,
and civil rights all still to come. The end of the 2025–26 term is sure
to leave a deep mark on federal law.
Just the News
Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/supreme-court-nears-end-term-several-high-profile-cases-still-pending
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
