The U.S. Supreme Court will hold the final day of its term on Tuesday, June 30. There are 4 cases left — including the Trump administration's challenge to birthright citizenship — out of the 58 that have been argued.
Two major cases were decided in early June, ahead of the court's final sprint: One essentially gutted what remained of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, prompting Republicans in a number of Southern states to redraw congressional maps to diminish or eliminate majority-Black districts that have elected Black members of Congress. The second major case that has been decided struck down President Trump's tariff program because the court said Congress had not authorized it, and Trump exceeded his authority in doing it on his own.
So what's left?
Birthright citizenship
Trump v. Barbara
Trump has long maintained that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil, and on the first day of his second term in office, he signed an executive order barring citizenship for children born in the U.S. if parents entered the country illegally or if the parents are living and working in the U.S. legally with temporary visas. The executive order never went into effect because every lower court judge to review it concluded, in the words of one, that the order was "blatantly unconstitutional." Specifically, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, enacted after the Civil War, says that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
While almost all scholars interpret that language broadly, and as applying to all babies born in the U.S., Trump himself maintains that it applies only to the children of former slaves, and definitely not to the children of those in the U.S. illegally or the children of noncitizens living here legally.
Read more about the case:
- A once-fringe theory on birthright citizenship comes to the Supreme Court
- Supreme Court majority seems inclined to rule against Trump on birthright citizenship
- As birthright citizenship goes to Supreme Court, here's how Americans feel about it
- Trump attends Supreme Court arguments over his executive order, a presidential first
Trans bans in sports
Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
At issue are laws recently enacted in about half the states that ban trans girls and women from participating in women's sports at publicly funded schools. Before the court are two cases — one involving varsity competition at colleges and universities, and the other involving sports in high schools. Supporters of the bans say the laws are needed to prevent athletes whose assigned sex at birth was male from having an unfair advantage in women's sports. Opponents of the bans say they discriminate based on sex, in violation of both federal law and the Constitution's guarantee to equal protection of the law. And for athletes at every level, the issue is deeply personal, with tennis greats Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova on opposing sides, along with hundreds of other athletes.
Read more about the cases:
- A conservative Supreme Court tackles the question of trans women in school sports
- Supreme Court appears likely to uphold state bans on transgender athletes
- Trump's ban on gender-affirming care for young people puts hospitals in a bind
Will independent government agencies remain independent?
Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook
Decided June 29: The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday further overturned a 91-year old precedent that has prevented presidents from removing members of independent agencies at will. The decision represents a significant win for the Trump administration and a major expansion of the president's control over parts of the government once seen as a check on his powers.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court found that President Trump's March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause was lawful. Read more.
The court ruled that the Federal Reserve's Lisa Cook can stay in her job for now. The vote in Cook's case was 5-4 with the court's three liberal justices and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion.
Case background published June 9: Donald Trump is not the first president to try to fire the heads of independent agencies. President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to fire one of the five Federal Trade Commission commissioners then serving in office. But in 1935, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the president; the court declared that under the federal law, commissioners could only be fired "for cause," meaning "inefficiency in office, neglect of duty, or malfeasance."
Every Supreme Court since then has reaffirmed that decision. If the conservative supermajority sides with Trump, he (as well as future presidents) will be able to fire, at will, agency leaders in all or almost all previously independent agencies.
Ironically, the commissioner in the crosshairs this time was also a member of the Federal Trade Commission. Trump appointed Rebecca Slaughter to the FTC in his first term and fired her in his second. The Supreme Court allowed the firing to go through on a temporary basis, over staunch dissents from the court's three liberal justices.
But the odds are that the court's six conservative justices will rule definitively in Trump's favor, the result being that independent agencies will no longer be independent.
So does that mean he can fire members of the Federal Reserve Board?
Trump threatened to fire the head of the Fed, Jerome Powell, and tried to fire Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed board. But the Supreme Court so far has refused to allow her removal. Cook's case, now awaiting decision by the court, has prompted considerable anxiety among economists, business leaders and others. When the Slaughter case was argued in December, some of the conservative justices seemed to suggest that the Fed had more protections than other agencies. Just how the court will thread that needle remains to be seen.
Read more about the cases:
- Supreme Court appears poised to vastly expand presidential powers
- How Trump's firings could upend a 90-year-old Supreme Court ruling limiting his power
- Supreme Court doubtful of Trump claim he can fire Fed governors by fiat
- It's showdown time for the Fed's independence at the Supreme Court
Mail-in ballots
Watson v. Republican National Committee
Decided June 29: The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Mississippi law that allows election officials to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days after it. The ruling is a loss for the Republican Party, which brought the case, ahead of this year's midterm elections.
The court's ruling was 5-4, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett authoring the opinion, joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's liberal wing of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Read more about the opinion.
Case background published June 9: By law, 29 states count at least some ballots that arrive after Election Day, including ballots from overseas and from members of the military, as long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
In the case before the court, Mississippi defends late-arriving ballots, noting that the Constitution gives states the right to run their own elections. That said, the Trump administration and the Republican Party take the opposite position. They maintain that under federal law the election has to happen on Election Day, and anything that happens after that is not part of the election.
Read more about the case:
- Supreme Court appears skeptical of laws counting mail-in ballots after Election Day
- The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to grace periods for mail ballot returns
Geofencing — a new tool for law enforcement
Chatrie v. US
Decided June 29: The Supreme Court has restricted the use of a relatively new law enforcement technique that allows police to tap into giant tech-firm databases to see who was near the scene of a crime.
Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan said the technique, known as geofencing, violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches. Read more about the opinion.
Case background published June 9: Geofencing entails drawing a virtual geographical fence around an area where a crime was committed. In this case, the area within the geofence line included not just a bank where a robbery took place but also a church and a senior citizens home. The government sought a warrant that required Google to search its data and turn over any of the names of users who were within the geofence line at the time of the crime.
Essentially, the question for the justices is whether this new technique is ingenious, Orwellian, or both? The government contends that because people are free NOT to give their location data to their tech provider, the data that the tech company does have must be turned over to police pursuant to a warrant. Countering that argument, opponents of geofencing contend that because the warrant directs the tech company to search millions of users' location history, millions of people were subjected to a search despite never having done anything suspicious.
Read more about the case:
- Supreme Court considers constitutionality of 'geofence' warrants
- Privacy and law enforcement clash as the Supreme Court wrestles with 'geofence' warrants
- WATCH: The Supreme Court case that could redefine digital privacy
Temporary protected status for eligible migrants
Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot
Decided June 25: The Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the green light to begin mass deportations of people who have been living and working legally in the United States for years, some even decades.
By a 6-3 vote in Mullin v. Doe, the court's conservative majority ruled that the president has virtually unrestrained power to end the Temporary Protected Status program, known as TPS.
Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito that under the TPS law, the president has unreviewable authority to end the program, without intervention from the courts.
Read more about the June 25 decision.
Case background published June 9: Congress enacted the Temporary Protected Status law in 1990 to allow fully vetted and eligible migrants to live and work legally in the U.S. if they cannot return safely to their countries because of natural disasters, armed conflicts and other extraordinary conditions. Since the law was enacted 36 years ago, every president, Republican and Democrat, has embraced it. Except Trump. In his first term, he tried and failed to kill off TPS. But in the 16 months since he returned to office, he may well be more successful. Currently, there are 17 countries whose migrants have been designated with TPS status, and so far Trump is seeking to eliminate 13 of those countries from the TPS list.
The two test cases before the Supreme Court involve migrants from Haiti and Syria. The Haitians — more than 300,000 of them — have been living legally in the U.S. since a devastating earthquake in 2010, followed by a deadly cholera epidemic, domestic terrorism, including widespread kidnappings and killings by marauding gangs, and political assassinations that have continued to this day. The Syrians are a much smaller group of roughly 3,800.
The Trump administration argues that decisions about TPS are entirely up to the president and that the courts have no power to review those decisions. If the court agrees, that could well lead to mass deportations.
Read more about the cases:
- Supreme Court appears to lean toward ending TPS for some migrants
- Supreme Court weighs Trump's effort to end temporary protected status for Haitians, Syrians
- Trump can begin deportations of Syrian, Haitian TPS holders, Supreme Court says
Guns
Wolford v. Lopez and US v. Hemani
Decided June 25: In a 6-3 ideologically divided decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require gun owners to get permission from property owners before bringing guns onto their land. The high court said that requiring permission in advance is an undue burden on the right to possess and carry a firearm.
In most states, gun owners can bring firearms onto private property, unless the property owner tells them otherwise. But five states — Hawaii, California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey — have passed laws that require gun owners to get permission in advance.
These regulations are sometimes called "vampire laws," so named from Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, Dracula, where the Count "may not enter anywhere at the first, unless there be some one of the household who bid him to come."
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a conservative supermajority, drove a stake through the laws by deciding that they "hobble[s] what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives." Read more about the June 25 opinion.
Decided June 18: In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that the government's prosecution of a marijuana user for owning guns was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The case, US v. Hemani, stems from the arrest of Ali Hemani. In 2022, federal agents found a pistol and 60 grams of marijuana in a search of his home. When asked, Hemani told the agents that he uses marijuana "about every other day," according to court filings. On the basis of his drug use and gun ownership, the government convicted Hemani of violating the law at issue in this case. This is the same law that was used to convict President Biden's son Hunter in 2024.
"The Court's decision is narrow," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote. "It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm; other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms ... provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies; or whether the government could bring a prosecution ... accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant's drug use renders him a danger to himself or others, or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous."
Hemani challenged the law as unconstitutional, contending that it violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms and is unconstitutionally vague. The law prevents "unlawful" drug users from owning guns, but as his lawyers pointed out in filings to the Supreme Court, "the statute does not define "unlawful user."
The Supreme Court agreed with Hemani's concerns, but did not disregard concerns about drug users possessing guns. Read more about the court's June 18 decision.
Case background published June 9: In most states, gun owners can bring firearms onto private property, unless the property owner tells them otherwise. But five states — Hawaii, California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey — have passed laws that require gun owners to get permission in advance. The question facing the justices is whether that requirement for advance permission violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In a second case, the question is whether a federal law that makes it a felony for drug users to possess a gun violates the Second Amendment. The law is akin to one that resulted in the prosecution and conviction of Hunter Biden. Biden was convicted of the gun law in this case, along with two other charges, in connection with his purchasing a firearm in 2018.
In 2022 , the court issued a broad ruling declaring that gun regulations henceforth would be deemed unconstitutional if they had no analog to a similar gun regulation that existed at the founding. Lower courts have found the decision confusing and difficult to administer, and they have unsubtly complained about the lack of guidance on gun issues from the Supreme Court. The two gun cases this term may answer at least some of those questions.
Read more about the cases:
