The U.S. Supreme Court’s winter break ends Friday when the justices gather in their private conference. The traditional break is a time for catching up on reading and writing opinions, and this court has had significant catching up to do.
The justices often have issued several decisions in argued cases in November and December— the “easy” cases resulting in unanimous opinions. But this term’s first opinion in an argued case didn’t come until Jan. 9, 2026. It was, surprisingly, a 5-4 opinion in a case involving post-conviction relief.
The long winter break has only increased expectations, or anxiety, about rulings in several key cases, including in the centerpiece of President Donald Trump’s economic policy—tariffs—and a major voting rights challenge with critical implications for upcoming elections.
Trump’s legal issues dominated the justices’ emergency docket last year and now dominate their argument docket with ongoing questions about executive power, the separation of powers, and citizenship.
Let’s do a little “catching up” before the rest of the term swings into high gear.
Cases Argued and Awaiting Decisions
Tariffs
Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections
Much already has been written about the tariff question. The justices will decide whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorized Trump to impose his worldwide tariffs. Until Trump, no president in the IEEPA's nearly 50-year history had ever invoked that law to impose tariffs.
The justices heard arguments in both cases (combined for argument) on Nov. 5, 2025. Many court watchers expected an early decision because of the issue’s importance, but the justices apparently were in no rush. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled against the president and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision.
Voting Rights
Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais
The Roberts Court’s conservative majority has been no friend of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, known as the crown jewel of the Civil Rights movement. It neutered one key section (Section 5), and civil rights and voting rights advocates fear that the remaining key section—Section 2— could face a similar fate. Section 2 prohibits voting standards, practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. That prohibition applies nationwide.
The justices heard the cases last term but were unable to resolve them and ordered re-arguments that took place Oct. 15, 2026. The two cases, consolidated for argument, involve challenges to the Louisiana legislature’s creation of a second majority Black congressional district in its 2024 redistricting map. For the re-arguments, the justices asked the state and the challengers to brief and argue whether the state’s “intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th amendments to the Constitution.”
President’s Removal Power
Since the creation of the Federal Trade Commission in 1914, the five presidentially appointed commissioners have been protected from removal only for cause, that is for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. The Supreme Court upheld the “for cause” requirement in a 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
The Roberts Court has chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor, and it appears to be on its death bed. Last year, Trump fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause and argued that the removal restriction was unconstitutional. A federal district court temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s action pending an appeal. The Supreme Court, however, took the case before the appeals court. Arguments were heard on Dec. 8, 2025.
The questions for the justices are whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the Constitution’s separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor should be overruled, and whether a federal court has the power to prevent a person’s removal from public office.
From the Federal Trade Commission to the Federal Reserve Board, here we go again.
The Federal Reserve Act authorizes the president to dismiss members of the Board of Governors “for cause.” Last year, Trump decided that cause existed to remove Board member Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board. Trump claimed that before taking office, Cook made contradictory representations in two mortgage agreements a short time apart, claiming that a property in Michigan and a property in Georgia would simultaneously serve as her principal residence.
Trump decided that Cook’s “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter” made her unfit to continue serving on the Board. But a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction reinstating Cook, and a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit refused to block that order. The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to block the district court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal to the D.C. Circuit. The case was argued Jan. 21, 2026.
Transgender Sports
Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Idaho and West Virginia have state laws restricting participation in women’s and girls’ sports to women and girls based on biological sex determined at birth. The cases were argued before the justices on Jan. 13, 2026.
Link: Case Analysis from Constitution Daily
The justices will decide whether these laws and more than 20 similar state laws violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment or Title IX of the 1972 Education Act Amendments, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Upcoming Arguments
Birthright Citizenship
On April 1, 2026, the justices will hear arguments on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. The order has been extremely controversial, and the weight of legal and historical research does not favor Trump.
On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” which, he contends, restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause. The order provides, on a prospective basis only, that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth. The Citizenship order directs federal agencies not to issue or accept citizenship documents for such children born more than 30 days after the order's effective date. The question before the justices is whether the executive order complies with the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies the clause.
Gun Rights
A federal statute that is part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 states that “it shall be unlawful for any person . . . who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess firearms or ammunition. Ali Hemani was indicted in 2023 for violating the federal statute (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3)). The indictment alleged that in 2022, Hemani knowingly possessed a Glock 19 9mm pistol while being an unlawful user of controlled substances such as marijuana, promethazine, and cocaine. The gun was found in a closet in his parent’s home. The government did not allege Hemani was using drugs at the time he actually possessed the gun but that he was a regular drug user.
Link: Case Preview from Constitution Daily
A district court granted Hemani’s motion to dismiss the indictment and the federal appellate court affirmed, finding the law was unconstitutional as applied to him. The justices will hear arguments on March 2, 2026, on whether the federal statute violates the Second Amendment as applied to Hemani.
The above cases are a snapshot of the more closely watched challenges in the term. The justices may issue decisions on Friday (Feb. 20, 2026) and next Tuesday (Feb. 24,2026) and Wednesday (Feb. 25, 2026). The court’s decisions can be found here. Stay tuned.
Marcia Coyle is a regular contributor to Constitution Daily. She was the Supreme Court Correspondent for The National Law Journal and PBS NewsHour who has covered the Supreme Court for more than three decades.
