by Just the News
By the time the high court breaks for summer recess, the legal and political terrain of the United States may look markedly different.
As the Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 term comes to a close, a handful of
blockbuster cases remain undecided. Legal experts say the outcomes could
fundamentally reinterpret core constitutional provisions, shift the
balance of power between branches of government and reshape American
elections and governance for decades.
From birthright citizenship to the future of independent agencies and
voting-rights enforcement, the disputes test foundational assumptions
about citizenship, executive authority, minority protections and
campaign finance. Below is a guide to the most consequential rulings
still expected.
Trump v. Barbara: The Future of Birthright Citizenship
No case pending before the high court carries more immediate constitutional gravity than Trump v. Barbara.
Argued on April 1 – in an extraordinary oral argument session attended
by President Trump himself – the question for the court is whether
Executive Order 14160, signed on the first day of Trump’s second term,
comports with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The order directs federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents
to children born in the U.S. if their mother was undocumented or
present on a temporary visa, and their father was neither a citizen nor a
lawful permanent resident. Roughly 150,000 children a year could be
affected.
The amendment clause reads: "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.”
Since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), this has been
understood to confer citizenship on nearly everyone born on U.S. soil,
regardless of parental immigration status.
The administration argues that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
requires stronger political allegiance, excluding children of
undocumented or temporary-visa parents. Challengers, represented by the
ACLU, contend this rewrites a 125-year constitutional settlement and
that the executive cannot unilaterally alter a provision placed beyond
ordinary political control.
Lower courts have uniformly blocked the order pending litigation.
Oral arguments featured sharp exchanges. Solicitor General D. John
Sauer warned of a “new world” of easy global travel enabling “birth
tourism.” ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang, who benefited from birthright
citizenship as the child of Taiwanese student-visa holders, defended the
clause’s historical breadth. A decision is expected by late June or
early July and could redefine who counts as a U.S. citizen.
Trump v. Slaughter: The Fate of Independent Agencies and the Administrative State
Argued in December 2025, Trump v. Slaughter may have the
broadest long-term impact on federal governance. It directly confronts
whether Congress can shield members of independent agencies from at-will
presidential removal.
In 2025, Trump fired Federal Trade Commissioners Rebecca Kelly
Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya without cause, despite the FTC Act’s 1914
provision limiting removal to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or
malfeasance in office.” This challenges the landmark 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld such protections for agencies exercising quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions.
A ruling for the government could jeopardize independence at the FTC,
SEC, NLRB, EEOC, FERC, and potentially others including, in related
litigation, even the Federal Reserve.
Oral arguments suggested skepticism among conservative justices about Humphrey’s Executor’s
continued viability amid the agencies’ expanded modern roles. The court
has already stayed lower-court reinstatement orders, allowing the
firings to stand in the interim. Many observers expect the court's 6-3
conservative majority to narrow or overrule the precedent, further
consolidating executive control over the administrative state.
Louisiana v. Callais: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Peril
Louisiana v. Callais could have a profound impact on voting
rights. The case began as a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map
under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits
practices that dilute minority voting strength.
After a lower court found the state’s map diluted Black voting power
(black residents comprise about one-third of Louisiana’s population),
the legislature enacted a remedial map with two majority-black
districts. Non-black voters sued, alleging an unconstitutional racial
gerrymander.
The Supreme Court held oral argument for the first time in March
2025, then ordered reargument and directed briefing on whether creating
majority-minority districts – even to remedy a VRA violation – violates
the Equal Protection or Fifteenth Amendments. The second argument was
held in October 2025.
With the pre-clearance regime already curtailed by Shelby County v. Holder
(2013), Section 2 remains the primary federal tool against voting
discrimination. A sweeping decision limiting or invalidating it could
enable states to redraw maps for Congress, state legislatures and local
offices with reduced judicial oversight – potentially reshaping
representation ahead of and beyond the 2026 midterms.
NRSC v. FEC: Campaign Finance and the Role of Political Parties
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission,
argued in December 2025, could have a dramatic impact on money in
politics. The case challenges Federal Election Campaign Act limits on
coordinated expenditures between national party committees and their
candidates.
Party committees may raise large sums from individuals (far exceeding
direct contribution limits to candidates), but current rules cap how
much they can spend in coordination on items such as shared advertising
or strategy. Republican plaintiffs, including the NRSC, NRCC, and
then-Senator JD Vance, argue that these limits infringe First Amendment
rights to free association and speech.
Opponents warn that striking them would blur the line between party
and candidate funding, enabling wealthy donors to effectively channel
unlimited resources to specific campaigns via parties. Scholars view it
as potentially the most significant campaign finance ruling since Citizens United v. FEC (2010). A decision could flood races with coordinated party spending during the 2026 midterms.
West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox: Women’s Sports
In West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox,
the court will opine on the permissibility of state laws banning
transgender girls and women from participating in girls’ and women’s
sports teams. The opinions are expected to examine whether such bans
violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause.
A Term Poised to Reshape the Constitutional Landscape
Supreme Court opinions typically arrive in a late-June torrent. This
year’s cluster – potentially landing amid the heat of midterm
campaigning – could simultaneously redefine citizenship, executive power
over regulators, minority voting influence, and election funding
rules.
By summer recess, the legal and political terrain of the United States may look markedly different.
Just the News
Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/whats-still-pending-supreme-court
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
