A guide to the Supreme Court’s biggest rulings this term — and what’s still to come

The Supreme Court is poised to wrap up a pivotal term in which it has considered some of President Trump’s most controversial policies and addressed some of its most hotly debated issues. It is tradition for justices to save some of their most important decisions for the end of the term, and this year is no exception.

Only a few cases are still undecided. But that short list includes Trump’s effort to revoke birthright citizenship, transgender sports bans and a Republican-led attempt to limit mail-in voting.

In the cases that were decided, the president was mostly on the winning side. The court’s conservative majority ruled in Republicans’ favor on immigration, gun rights and various election disputes. The notable exception was Trump’s tariffs; The justices struck down those tariffs after finding that Trump lacked the legal authority to impose them.

Here is a summary of what lies ahead when the court’s term ends, and some of the most important cases already decided.

Undecided cases

citizenship by birth

What is the case about? At the beginning of his second term, Trump signed an executive order seeking to end the practice of universal birthright citizenship, which grants full U.S. citizenship to anyone born in the country. Under the terms of the decision, a baby’s citizenship will be determined by the legal status of its parents. Children born to mothers who are in the country illegally or legally on a temporary visa will not be granted citizenship unless their father is a citizen or legal permanent resident. Trump’s order will, for the first time, create a category of immigrants whose children will not automatically become American citizens.

What’s at stake? If the court sides with Trump 255,000 babies According to an estimate by the Migration Policy Institute and the Penn State Population Research Institute, each year those born in the United States would lose the citizenship rights they would otherwise have. In their ruling, the justices will also address a more fundamental question raised by the case: After more than 150 years of legal precedent, does the president have the authority to unilaterally redefine the 14th Amendment’s birthright guarantee of citizenship?

If oral arguments are any indication, the court may find that he is not. The justices—even conservative ones—were skeptical of the Trump administration’s logic when they heard the case in April.

Trump’s authority to fire federal employees

What are the lawsuits about? One of the ways Trump has reshaped the federal government since returning to the White House has been through mass layoffs of federal employees. The court is currently considering two cases involving high-level government employees who say the president violated the law when he tried to fire them. These workers, Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook and Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, held positions with legal protections that limited whether they could be fired only for certain reasons.

What’s at stake? These cases have consequences that go far beyond whether two people can keep their jobs. They will determine how much power Trump and future presidents will have to reshape some of the most important institutions in the federal government. Because of their critical roles in the economy, the Federal Reserve and FTC were specifically designed by Congress to be insulated from political influences. If the court sides with Trump, it would give him much more power over a larger portion of the federal government.

There are significant differences between the two cases that could mean they will have different outcomes. Cook’s case hinges on whether the Trump administration’s stated justification for firing him — the controversial allegation that he committed mortgage fraud — meets the “case” standard under the law. In Slaughter’s case, the administration is trying to get the law that prevents FTC commissioners from being fired completely repealed. Reflecting the bias of the justices in each case, Cook was allowed to remain in his position while his trial was pending. There was no massacre.

Transgender participation in sports

What are the lawsuits about? Total 27 states There are laws on the books that prohibit transgender athletes from participating in girls’ or women’s sports. The court is considering challenges to two bills filed by transgender athletes who claim the bans violate their constitutional rights to equal protection under the law.

What’s at stake? Although there is no exact number, it is believed that the number of transgender athletes participating in sports at any level is very small. One of the cases before the court involves a 15-year-old from West Virginia who is believed to be the only openly transgender student-athlete in the entire state. Two years ago, the president of the NCAA He told Congress He said he was aware of “fewer than 10” transgender competitors in all college sports.

The sports bans are part of a much broader campaign to limit the rights of transgender people. gender affirming care laws for minors determining which bathrooms there are Transgender people can use a Trump administration policy that requires Americans to show their “biological sex at birth” on their passports. Last year, judges issued rulings allowing both grooming bans and passport policies to remain in place. Many legal experts to wait They need to do the same when it comes to sports.

voting by mail

What is the case about? The court is considering a lawsuit filed by Republicans who want to block states from counting mail ballots received after Election Day. more than one dozen states All voters’ late-arriving ballots will be allowed to be counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day, and 30 will accept late ballots from overseas military personnel. The Republican National Committee and the Mississippi Republican Party are asking the court to ban these grace periods and allow states to only accept ballots received on or before Election Day.

What’s at stake? If the court sides with the GOP, ballots arriving after Election Day will no longer be counted in American elections. While these ballot papers represent something a relatively small share Even a small fraction of the total votes cast in any given year can determine the outcome in close races. The lawsuit is also part of a broader Republican campaign to limit mail-in voting nationwide; This includes Trump’s call. almost completely banned practically. If the justices side with the GOP. some legal experts expectThis could signal that they would be open to allowing mail-in voting limits to be further restricted in future situations.

decided cases

Tariffs

Trump had many victories on the Supreme Court in his second term, but the victory in which he was on the wrong side was probably his biggest decision yet. In February, the court struck down the president’s sweeping global tariffs on goods imported from nearly all countries. With its decision, the court dealt a major blow to Trump’s economic agenda and created ripple effects that are still being felt across the global economy. There is a Trump administration We started the return process Up to $166 billion has been raised under the tariffs, but the president has also promised to find new legal grounds to replace the taxes that were struck down by the court.

Immigration

Since returning to the White House, Trump has repeatedly tested the limits of his legal authority as part of his sweeping immigration agenda. With four separate decisions this term, the Supreme Court signed off on its administration’s policies aimed at removing immigrants from the country and limiting who can enter the United States.

Two of those decisions came on Thursday. First, it paved the way for Trump to revoke the Temporary Protected Status of hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants. Migrants who were previously allowed to stay because the government determined it was unsafe for them to return to their home countries are now subject to deportation. The latter decision opens the door for the Trump administration to significantly limit the number of potential immigrants who have the opportunity to apply for asylum protection in the United States.

The court sided with the administration Tuesday in another ruling that gave immigration officials more leeway in blocking some green card holders who have left the United States from re-entering the country. Earlier in the term, the justices also unanimously agreed to create new standards that would make it harder for courts to overturn rejected asylum requests.

Elections

Democrats and Republicans have spent months in a back-and-forth redistricting battle over which party can redraw state congressional maps to secure the most new seats in the House ahead of key midterm elections in November. Both parties were constrained in this contest by legal limits that restricted them from segregating districts with concentrations of minority voters. But in April, the Supreme Court significantly weakened those limits. The decision gave state legislatures even more leeway to tactically split their maps for political gain.

This decision came late enough in the midterm cycle that most states were unable to prepare new maps in time for this year’s elections. But one estimate suggests Republicans could gain just that much 19 additional seats in Parliament in 2028, redistributing under new, more tolerant rules. Another consequence of the decision could be: significant decrease Number of minority MPs in Congress.

conversion therapy

In March, judges laid the groundwork to end laws banning conversion therapy, a widely debunked practice intended to persuade LGBTQ people to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled that bans on conversion therapy likely violate the First Amendment by restricting the speech of those who administer the practice. Judges did not officially go on strike state level bansbut their decisions created a new legal standard by which most of these laws would likely fail if challenged in court. The decision came despite everything broad consensus conversion therapy among medical professionals American Psychological AssociationIt is “substantially ineffective” and poses a “risk of serious harm”.

Weaponry

The court struck down Hawaii’s gun control law, making it the latest in a series of pro-gun rights decisions. Judges ruled that the law prohibiting gun owners from carrying firearms onto private property without the owner’s permission violated the Constitution. Earlier this month, the justices also unanimously ruled that a law banning some drug users from owning guns violates the Second Amendment.

Internet

The justices unanimously ruled in a case often overlooked because it involved arcane copyright law and left the status quo intact. rejected Sony’s effort to hold Cox Communications accountable for illegal hacking by subscribers of Cox’s internet service. Had the case gone the other way, it could have sent a shockwave through the tech industry that could fundamentally change the online economy.

Health

Justices on Thursday sided with a high-stakes dispute over whether pesticide company Monsanto can be held liable for failing to warn consumers that its weedkiller Roundup could cause cancer. Monsanto already paid billions of dollars Damages from Roundup-related lawsuits, but the court’s decision likely spares the company from having to pay more as part of thousands of lawsuits still pending. The decision caused a rare divide among Trump’s supporters. His administration supported Monsanto’s claim. But some members of the Make America Healthy Again coalition were outraged by the decision, blaming Trump in part for allowing Monsanto to escape liability for failing to warn consumers about Roundup’s alleged cancer risks.