On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court concluded issuing opinions for its October Term 2025. The session was marked by several landmark decisions and the potential for related cases to come back to the Court.
Video: 2026 Supreme Court Review: Key Decisions, Executive Power, Civil Discourse
While the justices will still consider cases on the emergency docket over the summer, the Court resumes hearing arguments on Oct. 5, 2026. The justices have granted certiorari for 20 cases to be argued as of July 9, 2026. They heard 59 cases in the October 2025 Term.
Here are the highlights from selected cases and opinions.
Tariffs
Decision: Learning Resources v. Trump
In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “against that backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the president power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will. That view would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy.”
In the main dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh believed President Donald Trump could use IEEPA “in light of the statutory text, longstanding historical practice, and relevant Supreme Court precedents.”
Voting Rights Act
Decision: Louisiana v. Callais
A divided Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision narrowed the ability of states to use race as a determining factor in creating election districts. The decision focused on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (or VRA), a landmark achievement of the Civil Rights Movement.
In his majority opinion in Callais, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that a Louisiana law went against the purpose of the VRA. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan was deeply skeptical of the majority opinion, which Kagan labeled as the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”
Blog Post: The Supreme Court’s Callais decision sets new framework for racial gerrymandering
Conversion Therapy
Decision: Chiles v. Salazar
Colorado and over 20 other states have laws prohibiting mental health professionals from using conversion therapy on minors because it is considered unsafe and ineffective. The purpose of conversion therapy is to change a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation. Talk therapy with that purpose fell under Colorado’s prohibition.
In an 8-1 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that Colorado’s law regulated speech based on viewpoint, violating the First Amendment. In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said “Colorado’s decision to restrict a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech is presumptively unconstitutional. In concluding otherwise, the Court’s opinion misreads our precedents, is unprincipled and unworkable.”
Transgender Athletes
Decision: West Virginia v. B.P.J (consolidated with Little v. Hecox)
A divided Supreme Court held that state lawmakers can regulate gender identity in scholastic sports competitions, and in particular, block transgender students born as biological men from competing in women’s and girls’ sports.
In his majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that “Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part. “Because of the Court’s decision today, West Virginia, and any other state actor, can deny B. P. J. and others like her these experiences simply because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not.”
In the decision’s aftermath, a challenge is expected, possibly in the next term, to the question of must all states block transgender students born as biological men from competing in women’s and girls’ sports.
Blog Post: Supreme Court allows state laws regulating transgender athletes
The Second Amendment
Decision: Wolford v. Lopez
A divided Supreme Court struck down a law in Hawaii that prohibited a person with a concealed carry permit from bringing a handgun onto private property open to the public without the property owner’s consent.
Justice Samuel Alito in a 6-3 decision held that the law violated the Second and 14th Amendments. Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent said she believed the colonial and founding era laws cited by the state in its arguments “similarly prohibited carrying firearms onto private property without the owner’s affirmative consent.”
Blog Post: Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii law regulating firearms possession
Decision: United States v. Hemani
A unanimous Supreme Court said that part of a federal law could not be used to prosecute a man solely for possessing a gun and a controlled substance at the same time. The Court upheld a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit bench opinion that struck down part of a federal law, U.S.C. 922(g)(3), that banned anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing firearms or ammunition.
In his opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that “the government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani under §922(g)(3)’s unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.”
Blog Post: Supreme Court rules in favor of man facing gun ban for using marijuana
Also, on June 30, 2026, the Court accepted a combined case that challenges bans in Cook County, Illinois, and a Connecticut state law on the sale, transfer, and possession of assault weapons. The case will be heard in the Court’s next term.
Presidential Removal Powers
Decision: Trump v. Slaughter
President Trump removed Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from her position as a commissioner for the FTC. She claimed her dismissal violated the terms of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which said that FTC commissioners could only be removed by the president for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Slaughter’s firing violated a precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). The Court’s majority officially overturned Humphrey’s Executor in a 6-3 decision from Chief Justice John Roberts that affirmed the president’s broad power to remove executive officials from office.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor worried the Court’s recent decisions in similar cases concentrated too much power in the executive branch.
Decision: Trump v. Cook
The Supreme Court faced a decision about a government request to stay a district court ruling preventing President Trump from firing Lisa Cook. She started serving a 14-year term on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in 2023. Under the Federal Reserve Act, the president can only remove members of the Federal Reserve Board “for cause.”
In his 5-4 decision for the Court’s majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the District Court’s order should remain in effect pending the conclusion of litigation over Cook’s attempted removal. “The Government has not shown that it is likely to prevail on the legal arguments advanced in its stay application,” he determined.
In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the majority ruling was flawed. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said the Court acted too soon in accepting the case.
Blog Post: Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC member but not Fed director
Birthright Citizenship
Decision: Trump v. Barbara
A divided Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship and offered a broad constitutional understanding of the right to automatic citizenship for children born in the territory of the United States regardless of their nationality.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that “[c]hildren born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority’s constitutional holding, but he concluded that Trump’s executive order violated a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. §1401(a).
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued that “the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.”
Blog Post: Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order in landmark decision
Absentee Federal Election Ballots
Decision: Watson v. Republican National Committee
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that federal election laws do not override a state law that permits counting ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her majority opinion, wrote that “the [federal] Election-Day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”
In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito agreed that the defining element of an election is the electorate’s choice of a candidate, but that’s where his agreement ended. “The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement,” he wrote. “Election day is a specified date, not a span of multiple days.”
Blog Post: Justices rule that states may count late-arriving election ballots
Cellphone Data Access
Decision: Chatrie v. United States
A divided Supreme Court held that a police request to obtain cellphone user location data represents a search and generally requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. A Virginia man, Okello Chatrie, claimed a detective did not reasonably obtain search warrants used to track down his cellphone location data. The government later used this data to convict him of robbing a bank.
Justice Elena Kagan, in a 6-3 decision, said “police conducted a search when they gained access to [Google’s] Location History data,” Kagan noted. Citing the Court’s precedent in Carpenter v. United States (2018), Kagan said, “[t]he Fourth Amendment protects individuals’ reasonable expectations of privacy, and governmental intrusion into that private sphere generally qualifies as a search.”
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, dissented—arguing an expanded definition also included a requirement that “the police must obtain a warrant every time they access any cell-phone location information from a third party.”
Blog Post: Justices say police access to geofence data falls under Fourth Amendment protection
Immigration
Decision: Mullin v. Doe
A divided Supreme Court allowed the Department of Homeland Security to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrian and Haitian immigrants. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a 6-3 Court that courts cannot review the decision to end TPS status for the two countries—and clear the way for deportations—when the challengers raise only non-constitutional claims.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that DHS secretaries have repeatedly determined that conditions are too dangerous to permit safe return to Syria and Haiti. “[The] District Court in the Haiti litigation found as well that the plaintiffs had a likely successful equal protection claim, in part because statements made by the President showed that a racially discriminatory purpose had entered into the TPS termination,” Kagan said.
Decision: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado
A divided Court also ruled that refugees from Mexico need to be within the United States’ physical border to make an asylum claim instead of an adjacent border location in Mexico. Justice Samuel Alito held for a 6-3 Court that “an alien standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border.” He cited language from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that Congress had established “a mandatory set of procedures” to guide the asylum process. “The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U. S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U. S. soil.”
Blog Post: Justices end protected status for Syrian, Haitian immigrants, define asylum border status
Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.
