The Supreme Court’s major cases during the 2025-26 term

The Supreme Court’s major cases during the 2025-26 term Navigate to a case Decided Argued Cases related to President Donald Trump are dominating the Supreme Court’s docket for the second straight term, and this time the stakes are higher. The justices have already ruled that Trump cannot continue with most of his sweeping tariffs, the hallmark of his economic agenda. The court is also weighing whether to overturn a 90-year-old precedent that curbs a president’s power to dismiss the heads of agencies that Congress set up to be independent. The justices will also determine whether Trump can fire a member of the powerful Federal Reserve. But Trump’s policies are not the only thing on the court’s docket. The justices are also deciding major cases on politics, transgender rights and more. Here are some of the biggest cases this term, including several on the court's emergency docket, where the justices make temporary decisions about whether to allow a policy to go forward while legal challenges play out against it in court. Alabama’s congressional map Allen v. Milligan Decided: June 2, 2026 What they ruled: Alabama can use a congressional map with one, instead of two, majority-minority districts in the November midterms. Why it matters: The ruling, granted on a temporary basis, came only weeks after the high court’s decision in April to sharply weaken the 1965 Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial gerrymandering. Using that decision’s reasoning, the high court found that a separate map that incorporated two majority-minority districts probably failed to meet the new standards. That was despite a lower court finding that Alabama intentionally discriminated against Black voters when it drew its preferred map. The high court’s intervention means that the GOP is likely to gain a seat in the House in the November midterms. Mifepristone distribution by mail Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana, GenBioPro v. Louisiana Decided: May 14, 2026 What they ruled: The Supreme Court allowed patients to continue to access by mail the most commonly used abortion pill for the time being. Why it matters: Louisiana is challenging an FDA rule, put in place during the Biden administration, that allows mifepristone to be distributed by mail. The state argues the rule undercuts its restrictions on abortion and medication abortion. Abortion rights advocates frame the state’s lawsuit as the biggest threat to abortion access since the high court overturned Roe v. Wade. The wide availability of mifepristone via mail has frustrated antiabortion groups and Republicans, who expected the post-Roe era to bring a drop in abortions. Instead, abortions have increased, largely because drugs such as mifepristone can be prescribed remotely via telehealth providers. The justices’ ruling was a temporary emergency ruling. The case is ongoing in the lower courts and could return to the Supreme Court. Crisis pregnancy center subpoena First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Platkin Decided: April 29, 2026 What they ruled: The Supreme Court held unanimously that a chain of faith-based antiabortion pregnancy centers can mount a federal court challenge to a subpoena for its donors. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers Inc. claimed the records request was part of an intimidation campaign by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin (D) and other officials hostile to its views on abortion. They center claimed the action chilled its First Amendment rights. Why it matters: The case turned on a technical legal issue, but nonprofits and advocacy groups across the ideological spectrum followed it closely because the outcome affects their own ability to thwart what they see as overreach by state officials. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press weighed in on the case, saying the First Amendment rights of journalists would be threatened if they faced improper investigations but were forced to wait out state proceedings before turning to federal courts. Race and voting districts Louisiana v. Callais Decided: April 29, 2026 What they ruled: In an ideologically divided 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority limited a key provision of the Voting Rights Act when it ruled that the intentional use of race to draw a second Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana violated the constitutional provision that all people be treated equally. Why it matters: The decision dealt with one congressional district, but its implications sweep much more broadly. The justices sharply limited the use of race in drawing legislative maps to bolster the voting power of minority communities, effectively undermining the last major pillar of the landmark VRA. The ruling touched off a scramble by GOP-controlled states across the South to redraw congressional districts largely held by Black Democrats ahead of November’s midterm elections. Democratic groups also estimate the seats of hundreds of minority officeholders at the state and local level are in danger of being carved up. WWII-era pollution liability Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish Decided: April 17, 2026 What they ruled: The oil giant Chevron can fight an environmental damage lawsuit filed by Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana in federal court, instead of state court. The case centered on work by Chevron’s predecessors — drilling oil to make aviation gas during World War II — which the court found was done on behalf of U.S. government interests. Why it matters: Chevron is likely to get more favorable terms in federal court, where judges and juries are less likely to have a bias toward local interests. The ruling could also wipe out a $745 million local jury verdict meant to help restore damaged coastal wetlands in Plaquemines Parish. More broadly, legal experts say, the ruling could make it harder for communities to win environmental lawsuits against big companies. Ahead of arguments in January, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. recused himself because of financial interests in ConocoPhillips, a party in a related case. Ban on conversion therapy for gay and transgender teens Chiles v. Salazar Decided: March 31, 2026 What they ruled: In an 8-1 decision, the majority found a Colorado law banning conversion therapy for gay and transgender youth violates the free speech rights of an evangelical counselor. Kaley Chiles wants to use talk therapy guided by biblical teachings to help “young people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.” Why it matters: The ruling is significant because it could lead to challenges in about 20 states that have similar bans on conversion therapy. The case is also another in a string of rulings by the high court rolling back protections for gay and transgender people, while bolstering the rights of the religious. Copyright infringement Cox Communications v. Sony Decided: March 25, 2026 What they ruled: Internet service providers are generally not responsible for the illegal distribution and downloading of music on their services. Why it matters: The case was brought by record companies that own the rights to songs by major artists such as Beyoncé, Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears. They alleged that piracy of that music abounds online, and internet service providers like Cox Communications — which has the power to kick users off the internet — did little to police copyright infringers. But a unanimous court ruled in favor of Cox, with the majority saying a general service like providing internet is not specifically “tailored to infringement” and does not induce it. Cox is therefore not liable, the court said. The case is the latest in an ongoing debate about the extent to which internet and tech companies are responsible for web content. In this case, as in a recent one involving Twitter and Google, internet companies scored a win. Transgender students in California Mirabelli v. Bonta Decided: March 2, 2026 What they ruled: California public school policies that discourage teachers from disclosing a student’s gender transition to parents likely violate parents’ religious free-exercise rights. The ruling blocked the policies while the case is litigated in lower court. Why it matters: While some states require teachers to disclose a child’s gender transition to parents, California discourages it. The state argues that limiting disclosure gives students undergoing a social transition the opportunity to broach a sensitive subject with their families. Parents in the case say that schools were hiding important information about their children, preventing them from directing their kids’ upbringing. Though preliminary, the court’s reasoning offers insight into how the court might act toward similar policies, which are being challenged in school districts across the country. Legality of most of Trump’s tariffs Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump Decided: Feb. 20, 2026 What they ruled: The justices ruled against most of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, the cornerstone of his economic agenda. The justices found a 1977 law that grants the president economic powers to address emergencies did not give him power to levy broad tariffs. Why it matters: The case is one the most significant regarding Trump’s second-term agenda and perhaps the biggest of the Supreme Court’s term. The loss significantly curtails economic powers he sought, though the administration is reinstating some tariffs under other legal authorities. The administration has started refunding some of the $166 billion in import levies it collected from businesses but has gone back to court to argue it should not have to repay some refunds. California congressional redistricting David Tangipa, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, et al. Decided: Feb. 4, 2026 What they ruled: The Supreme Court cleared the way for a voting map in California that could allow Democrats to win up to five additional seats in Congress during November’s midterm elections. Why it matters: California Democrats gerrymandered the state’s voting map in response to a similar effort launched by Republicans in Texas. The ruling was significant because it allowed Democrats to counter Texas’s redistricting. The battle between the states is part of a broader nationwide redistricting war in which political parties are trying to seek an advantage ahead of pivotal elections in November. Challenge to mail-in ballots Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections Decided: Jan. 14, 2026 What they ruled: In a 7-2 ruling, the justices decided Republican Rep. Mike Bost (Illinois) met the threshold to bring a challenge to Illinois’ mail-in balloting law. Why it matters: The justices found political candidates have inherent standing to challenge election procedures, given their interest in the outcome. The ruling allowed Bost’s lawsuit against Illinois to go forward but did not decide whether the state’s mail-in procedures are legal. The case has implications for efforts by allies of President Donald Trump to stop the practice of counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day in a handful of states led by Democrats. The Trump administration weighed in on the case, supporting some — but not all — of Bost’s arguments. National Guard troops in Chicago Trump v. Illinois Decided: Dec. 23, 2025 What they ruled: President Donald Trump cannot deploy the National Guard in the Chicago area for now. The president’s ability to federalize the National Guard likely only applies in “exceptional” circumstances. Why it matters: President Trump has claimed virtually unchecked authority to mobilize and deploy troops he says are necessary to fight crime and protect immigration enforcement officers. The order could affect other efforts by the administration to deploy troops to cities over the objections of local leaders. Shortly after the order, Trump announced he would end his efforts to deploy the troops in Chicago and Portland, Oregon, where a federal judge had also temporarily blocked troop deployments in apparent deference to the high court’s order. Texas congressional redistricting Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens Decided: Dec. 4, 2025 What they ruled: The Supreme Court cleared the way for a voting map in Texas that could net Republicans up to five additional seats in Congress during November’s midterm elections. Why it matters: The ruling provided a significant boost to Republicans, who have taken the unusual step of redrawing voting maps between censuses to try to shore up a fragile majority in the House. The effort in Texas, which came at the behest of President Donald Trump, sparked a nationwide redistricting war between red and blue states. Self-identifying gender on passports Trump v. Orr Decided: Nov. 6, 2025 What they ruled: The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end for now a policy under which people can self-identify their gender on passports. The justices cleared the way for an executive order by President Donald Trump that required passports to reflect a person’s sex as listed on their birth certificate. Why it matters: The ruling is the latest in a string by the high court rolling back gay and transgender rights. In recent terms, the justices have allowed states to ban gender transition treatments for minors and allowed religious parents to remove their children from lessons involving LGBTQ+ books that conflict with their beliefs. This term, the court found a Colorado law banning conversion therapy for gay and transgender youths probably violates free speech rights. The court also is weighing whether states can prevent transgender athletes from playing on girl’s and women’s sports teams in schools and colleges. Deportation of Venezuelan migrants Noem et al. v. National TPS Alliance, et al. Decided: Oct. 3, 2025 What they ruled: Trump can end deportation protection for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants for now. Why it matters: Temporary protected status shields migrants from a number of countries from being deported. The administration said former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem revoked this status for Venezuelan people because she concluded conditions in that country no longer warranted it. A lower court judge had ruled that Noem broke the law and called her actions “arbitrary and capricious.” This case illustrates the broad deference the high court has given the administration in many immigration cases. Foreign aid freeze Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Trump v. Global Health Council Decided: Sept. 26, 2025 What they ruled: The administration can freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid for food, medicine and development assistance for the time being. The justices said international aid groups did not have the authority to sue over the cuts. Why it matters: President Trump has asserted unilateral authority to put a hold on federal funding. Congressional Democrats have said Trump has illegally frozen billions in funding. They say the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. Race as a factor in immigration raids Noem v. Perdomo Decided: Sept. 8, 2025 What they ruled: A divided court allowed the administration to continue using race as a factor in deciding which people to stop for immigration checks in southern California. The order overturned a ruling by a federal judge who placed limits on immigration raids in the Los Angeles area after determining federal agents were indiscriminately targeting people based on race. Why it matters: The administration argued that a temporary restraining order was hampering its ability to crack down on illegal migration and that the stops by authorities were not unlawful. The majority did not offer a rationale for the order. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion that race can be considered along with other factors in forming the reasonable suspicion required to justify stopping someone for an immigration check, he wrote. Immigrant advocates warn the order could open the door to racial profiling nationwide. Cutting NIH grants National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association Decided: Aug. 21, 2025 What they ruled: Trump can slash nearly $800 million in National Institutes of Health grants for the study of diseases in minority, gay and transgender communities while legal battles over the funding play out in the lower courts. Why it matters: Trump officials argued the research was unscientific, did not improve health and provided little return on investment. Groups that tried to block the cuts said they represented “an unprecedented disruption to ongoing research.” The order bolsters Trump’s efforts to eliminate DEI programs in the federal government and private sectors. Removing members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Trump v. Boyle Decided: July 23, 2025 What they ruled: The Trump administration may remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission while litigation over their dismissal continues in the lower courts. Why it matters: The order was another in a series allowing Trump to exert greater control over the federal bureaucracy. The majority did not offer a rationale for its decision. The court’s three liberal justices objected. Gutting the Education Department McMahon v. New York Decided: July 14, 2025 What they ruled: The administration can slash more than a third of the workforce at the Education Department while a case challenging the move plays out in the federal courts. Why it matters: President Trump has ordered officials in his administration to shutter the Education Department, part of a larger plan to radically downsize the federal bureaucracy that the Supreme Court has largely upheld to date. Congress created the department by statute. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a scathing dissent joined by the court’s two other liberals, called the order a major expansion of presidential power. Immigration protections for Haitians and Syrians Dahlia Doe v. Noem, Trump v. Miot Argued: April 29, 2026 What the case is about: Did Trump administration officials take the proper steps in terminating temporary protected status (TPS) for Haitian and Syrian immigrants? Why it matters: A decision against the Haitian and Syrian TPS holders could mean the Trump administration can cancel protections for all those who are legally in the United States under that humanitarian designation. Approximately 1.3 million immigrants have TPS, which allows them to live and work in the U.S. for a certain period of time. Congress created TPS in 1990 to protect immigrants in the U.S. from being deported to countries engulfed in an armed conflict, a natural disaster or another extraordinary crisis. Before Trump was reelected, the U.S. government determined that the immigrants’ countries were too dangerous to return to. In May 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to end temporary protections for thousands of Venezuelans while a lawsuit makes its way through the courts. During oral arguments in April, the court’s conservative majority appeared sympathetic to the administration’s arguments that it took the required steps regarding Haitian and Syrian TPS holders — and that courts were barred from reviewing immigration officials’ decision. Police warrants for personal data Chatrie v. United States Argued: April 27, 2026 What the case is about: Did the execution of a law enforcement warrant for a criminal defendant’s Google location history data violate the Fourth Amendment? Why it matters: Google location history acts as a virtual diary of a person’s movements. To solve difficult crimes, law enforcement officials have executed what are known as “geofence” warrants to obtain that data. The warrants seek to locate everyone in a particular geographical area during a specific time frame, usually the scene of a crime. Okello Chatrie, a Virginia man convicted of robbing a credit union, says police violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they executed a warrant for his Google location history. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The case could further define the Constitution’s protections for digital privacy, which the Supreme Court has grappled with in recent years. During arguments, the justices appeared divided, as they wrestled with how such warrants square with the Constitution, drafted long before the advent of technology that could pinpoint an individual’s location. Limiting birthright citizenship Trump v. Barbara Argued: April 1, 2026 What the case is about: The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship, the legal principle that almost everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen. Why it matters: The case is one of the most significant of the term because it could fundamentally rewrite what it means to be American. The Trump administration has asked the justices to dramatically narrow the scope of birthright citizenship, arguing it should not apply to children born to parents in the country illegally or those on temporary visas for work, travel, school or humanitarian reasons. A ruling for Trump could have vast social, economic and political ramifications. It would be the largest change to citizenship since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the formerly enslaved. Asylum seekers at the southern Border Mullin v. Al Otro Lado Argued: March 24, 2026 What the case is about: Can the Trump administration turn back migrants as they approach the southern border and bar them from the opportunity to seek asylum? Why it matters: A ruling for the Trump administration would allow it to revive a policy in which U.S. border agents turn back migrants seeking to enter the country before they can apply for asylum. The policy, which an appeals court has blocked, is not presently in effect. But the Trump administration says it remains a useful tool to limit the flow of migrants into the United States. Migrants who challenged the policy say asylum seekers are entitled to apply for asylum even if they’re intercepted before crossing onto U.S. soil. The case, along with other immigration cases this term, highlights the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration agenda. During oral arguments, the justices seemed inclined to allow Trump to revive the policy. Accepting mail-in ballots after Election Day Watson v. Republican National Committee Argued: March 23, 2026 What the case is about: The Supreme Court appears likely to uphold a GOP challenge to tallying mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. A majority of justices seemed ready to side with arguments by Republicans and Libertarians that federal election law preempts Mississippi from counting ballots that arrive up to five days after polls close as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Why it matters: A ruling for the conservatives could open the door to challenges of similar provisions in other states with the midterm elections looming in November. Most states require mail-in ballots to arrive by Election Day, but Mississippi is one of 14 states that allow grace periods of days or weeks. Ban on drug users possessing guns United States v. Hemani Argued: March 2, 2026 What the case is about: The Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold a federal law that bars habitual drug users from possessing guns. Why it matters: Ali Danial Hemani was charged under the law after federal agents found a handgun in the Texas man’s home and he told them he used marijuana “about every other day.” Hemani says his conviction should be thrown out because the law violates his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Trump administration has said hundreds of people are prosecuted under the law each year. They include Hunter Biden, the son of former president Joe Biden, who was convicted in 2024 of violating the ban. The case tests how far the court’s conservatives are willing to go in expanding individual gun rights. Firing a member of the Federal Reserve Trump v. Cook Argued: Jan. 21, 2026 What the case is about: The Supreme Court will decide whether President Donald Trump can fire Federal Reserve board member, Lisa Cook, undermining the independence of the central bank. In a temporary ruling in October, the justices allowed Cook to remain on the job for the time being. Why it matters: The justices seemed inclined to block Trump’s efforts to remove Cook during arguments in January. Some of the justices said they wanted lower courts to develop the factual and legal arguments in the case before rendering a verdict. The Federal Reserve plays an unparalleled role in steering the U.S. economy, so Congress set it up to be insulated from political pressure from the president. The bank is tasked with setting interest rates and keeping inflation down. A high-profile group of former treasury secretaries, Federal Reserve Board chairs and governors, and other high-level economic officials warned in a friend-of-the-court brief that removing Cook could jeopardize “the credibility and efficacy of U.S. monetary policy.” Handgun-carry restrictions Wolford et al. v. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney general of Hawaii Argued: Jan. 20, 2026 What the case is about: Hawaii law prohibits people from bringing guns onto someone else’s private property without their consent. Challengers call the law a “near-universal restriction on handgun carry” and say it runs afoul of the Second Amendment. Why it matters: The justices appeared likely to limit or strike down the Hawaii law during arguments in January. The case represents another test of how the court will apply a landmark 2022 decision making it easier to challenge gun restrictions. Hawaii officials said their gun restrictions strictly abide by the Supreme Court’s decision. The challengers say Hawaii crafted the law “specifically to negate” the 2022 decision. Transgender athletes in women’s sports West Virginia v. B.P.J. Argued: Jan. 13, 2026 What the case is about: Does a West Virginia law that categorically bans transgender females from women’s sports violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause and Title IX, the landmark law that bans sex discrimination in education? Why it matters: A transgender teen and her mother are challenging the West Virginia law. The teen, who is in high school and has identified as female since she was a young child, wants to participate in track and cross-country. West Virginia argues Title IX has always allowed the creation of sports teams based on biological sex for a practical reason: If female sports were not limited in that manner, women might be deprived of a chance to win because of biological disadvantages with men. A win for B.P.J. could affect similar bans in nearly 30 states. The case is one of a series the court is considering that deals with the hot-button issues of gay and transgender rights. During arguments in January, the justices appeared inclined to leave the West Virginia ban, as well as one in Idaho, in place. B.P.J.’s case was heard on the same day as Little v. Hecox. Little v. Hecox Argued: Jan. 13, 2026 What the case is about: Does an Idaho law that categorically bans transgender females from women’s sports violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause? Why it matters: Lindsay Hecox, a trans woman and Boise State University student, challenged a 2020 Idaho law that banned transgender women from playing in women’s sports. She alleged the law violated her constitutional equal-protection rights. The justices in January heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of the ban, but the conservative majority seemed skeptical of overturning the law. As with B.P.J., a win could affect similar bans in over half the states. Limits on political party spending National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission Argued: Dec. 9, 2025 What the case is about: Do limits on the amount of money political parties can spend in coordination with individual candidates violate the First Amendment? Why it matters: The National Republican Senatorial Committee and others are challenging the existing spending limits, saying they improperly limit the party’s right to free speech. Striking down the limits could shift the balance of financial might in elections, giving more clout to parties and reducing the sway of outside groups that have come to dominate campaign spending. The Democratic National Committee, which has intervened in the case, argues removing the limits could give wealthy donors undue influence by allowing them to funnel money to specific candidates through political parties. During arguments, the justices wrestled with those points and implications of further loosing spending limits. Independence of federal agencies Trump v. Slaughter Argued: Dec. 8, 2025 What the case is about: Rebecca Slaughter, who was the last remaining Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, is challenging her removal by President Donald Trump. The Supreme Court has allowed Trump to remove her for now. The case is also a test of a major Supreme Court ruling from the 1930s. Why it matters: The court seemed open to overturning a 90-year-old precedent, known as Humphrey’s Executor, that allowed Congress to create non-partisan, independent agencies whose leaders are insulated from political interference by the president. In Slaughter’s case, Congress set up the FTC to be independent of the president by mandating commissioners could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” Trump has not alleged any misconduct by Slaughter. A win for Trump would give him and future presidents far greater political control over a range of powerful agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Federal Trade Commission. Religious rights of a Rastafarian Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections Argued: Nov. 10, 2025 What the case is about: Can prison officials be sued for monetary damages if they violate a person’s rights? Why it matters: The justices appeared skeptical that the law allowed Damon Landor, a Rastafarian, to sue prison officials individually for forcibly shaving off his dreadlocks while in a Louisiana prison. Landor’s attorneys aid prison officials violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Lower courts said the law did not allow him to seek monetary damages from individual officials. Landor’s attorneys argue there is no accountability if officials cannot be forced to pay. Louisiana officials told the court that “the current staffing shortage in state prisons would only grow worse if current staff and potential job applicants learned that they would be personally liable for money damages.” Justice illustrations by Shelly Tan.