Supreme Court in Final Stretch With Major Cases Undecided

The U.S. Supreme Court is entering the final stretch of its 2025-2026 term, with 23 cases still undecided out of 58 that were argued this year. The justices are racing to finish decisions and dissents before their summer recess, aiming to conclude their work by the end of June or early July 2026. The next scheduled opinion release is Thursday, June 11.

As NPR reports, the remaining docket touches on some of the most consequential legal and constitutional questions in modern American history — from birthright citizenship and presidential power to transgender rights, gun rights, voting procedures, and digital privacy. Two major cases have already been decided this term: one that effectively gutted remaining Voting Rights Act protections, and another that struck down President Trump’s tariff program.

Birthright Citizenship at a Crossroads

The most closely watched case is Trump v. Barbara, which tests whether President Trump’s executive order barring citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas violates the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Trump signed the order on the first day of his second term, but every lower court judge to review it blocked it from taking effect.

In a historic moment on April 1, Trump became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court. According to SCOTUSblog, at least five — and perhaps as many as seven — justices appeared likely to strike down the order. Trump himself acknowledged the possibility, telling Fox News the court will “probably rule against me because they seem to like doing that.”

Presidential Power and Independent Agencies

Two cases could fundamentally reshape the balance of power between the presidency and independent federal agencies. In Trump v. Slaughter, the court is considering whether the president can fire Federal Trade Commission commissioners at will, challenging the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent that has protected agency independence for nearly a century. The court’s conservative majority appears likely to side with Trump, a ruling that could eliminate the independence of all or most federal agencies.

A related case, Trump v. Cook, tests whether Trump can fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook — the first Black woman to serve on the Fed board and the first Fed governor a president has ever attempted to remove in the central bank’s 112-year history. Unlike the FTC case, the Supreme Court has allowed Cook to remain on the board while the case proceeds, with the court describing the Federal Reserve as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.”

Transgender Athlete Bans

The court is weighing two cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — that challenge state laws banning transgender girls and women from participating in women’s sports at publicly funded schools. About half the states have enacted such bans. After oral arguments in January, the court appeared inclined to uphold the state restrictions. Notably, tennis greats Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova are on opposing sides of the issue.

Voting Rights and Election Integrity

In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court is considering whether states can count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day if they are postmarked on time. Currently, 29 states allow some late-arriving ballots. A majority of justices appeared ready during oral arguments to require ballots to be received by Election Day, a ruling that could force a nationwide rewrite of mail-voting laws ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

This case follows the court’s May decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which significantly weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, making it harder to challenge racially discriminatory redistricting.

Immigration: Temporary Protected Status

In Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, the court is considering whether the president can unilaterally end Temporary Protected Status designations. Trump is seeking to eliminate TPS for 13 of 17 countries, with test cases involving Haiti (more than 300,000 people) and Syria (roughly 3,800 people). The court appeared divided after oral arguments in April. If the administration prevails, the decision could lead to mass deportations.

Digital Privacy and Geofence Warrants

Chatrie v. United States represents the Supreme Court’s first major examination of geofence warrants — a law enforcement technique that directs tech companies like Google to search millions of users’ location data to identify potential suspects. The case tests whether the Fourth Amendment keeps pace with rapidly evolving technology. The lower courts were deeply divided, with the 4th Circuit splitting 7-7 on whether a Fourth Amendment search even occurred.

Second Amendment and Gun Rights

Two gun cases remain pending. Wolford v. Lopez challenges a Hawaii law requiring gun owners to get advance permission to carry firearms on private property open to the public. United States v. Hemani tests whether federal law banning drug users from possessing guns violates the Second Amendment. The court’s 2022 Bruen decision has created confusion in lower courts, and these cases may provide much-needed clarity.

Campaign Finance

In NRSC v. FEC, the court is weighing whether federal limits on coordination between political parties and candidates violate the First Amendment. Several justices appeared sympathetic to the challengers during oral arguments. A ruling striking down coordination limits could fundamentally reshape campaign funding for the 2026 midterm elections.

What to Watch For

The Supreme Court typically releases its most controversial rulings at the end of the term. With the next opinion release scheduled for Thursday, June 11, and the term deadline approaching at the end of June or early July, the coming weeks will be among the most consequential in recent Supreme Court history. The outcomes of these cases will shape American law on everything from who gets to vote and how elections are funded to the very structure of the federal government and the meaning of citizenship itself.

As Katie Couric Media notes, the decisions “could also carry enormous real-world consequences for millions of Americans — from immigrants facing deportation and voters casting mail-in ballots to children born on U.S. soil whose citizenship status could suddenly be called into question.”