Presidential powers, transgender rights among upcoming Supreme Court arguments

Starting in January 2026, the Supreme Court will resume hearing arguments in several high-profile cases, including debates about executive powers and questions of discrimination.

The Court already considered cases this past fall about Colorado’s conversion therapy ban (Chiles v. Salazar), the fate of the Voting Rights Act (Louisiana v. Callais), President Donald Trump’s ability to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump), and the president’s power to fire a Federal Trade Commissioner (Trump v. Slaughter).

The rest of the 2025-2026 term features additional significant arguments raising constitutional questions and involving election issues. The justices also could add more cases to the docket up until mid-January 2026 for arguments in the current term.

Here is a brief look at some of the key cases to watch in the New Year.

Transgender Athletes

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Arguments: Jan 13, 2026)

In two cases scheduled to be heard separately on the same day, the Court will consider the extent to which gender identity and biological assignment at birth can be considered as factors in scholastic sports competitions. In Little, the Idaho Legislature enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bases competition on biological assignment at birth. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law violated the14th Amendment Equal Protection rights of “transgender women and girls.” In the case from West Virginia, a parent sued on behalf of her child, B.P.J., arguing that a state law banning biological boys who identify as girls from competing on girls’ teams was unconstitutional. The district court ruled in favor of the state on Equal Protection Clause and Title IX grounds. A divided Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court decision in favor of the student on the Title IX claim and ruled against the state on the Equal Protection questions.

The Second Amendment

Wolford v. Lopez (Arguments: Jan. 20, 2026)

The state of Hawaii passed a law making it a crime for a person with a concealed carry permit to carry a handgun on private property unless they have been "given express authorization to carry a firearm on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the state. The petitioners have cited a Second Circuit ruling on the same question regarding a similar law that the court struck down.

United States v. Hemani (Arguments: to be announced)

On a different Second Amendment question, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” concluding that the law violated the Second Amendment in most instances. The Solicitor General  argues that the Supreme Court should uphold the law upheld because of “narrow circumstances in which the government may justifiably burden” firearms possession, including when “habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society.”

Presidential Removal Powers

Trump v. Cook (Arguments: Jan. 21, 2026)

The Supreme Court will also decide if it should stay a district court ruling preventing President Donald Trump from firing Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Cook started serving a 14-year term in the board in 2023 and President Trump tried to fire Cook this year, alleging mortgage fraud by Cook before her appointment. Under the Federal Reserve Act, the president can only remove members of the Federal Reserve Board “for cause.”

Birthright Citizenship

Barbara v. Trump (Arguments: to be announced)

In June 2025, the Supreme Court first considered the birthright citizenship question in the context of national injunctions related to President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The justices did not rule on the merits of Trump’s order then. But now the Court will consider the executive order’s claim that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was adopted to confer citizenship on formerly enslaved people and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. Wong Kim Ark and other precedents have held that a child born in the United States is entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship regardless of their nationality, with limited exceptions.

Absentee Federal Election Ballots

Watson v. Republican National Committee (Arguments: to be announced)

This case considers whether a federal law or a state law determines when absentee federal election ballots can be counted if they are mailed before election day and arrive late. Under Mississippi’s statute, it requires that ballots for federal offices be cast— marked and submitted to election officials—by that day. Mississippi allows mail-in absentee ballots to be counted if they are received by election officials within 5 business days after election day. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the federal election-day statutes require ballots be cast by voters and received by election officials by election day and Mississippi’s law was pre-empted by the federal statute.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.