Supreme Court Nears End of Term with Major Cases Pending

The U.S. Supreme Court is heading into its final stretch of the 2025-2026 term, with 23 cases still undecided out of 58 that have been argued. The justices are racing to finish decisions and dissents before the end of June or early July, and the rulings they issue in the coming weeks could reshape American law on everything from birthright citizenship and executive power to transgender rights and immigration enforcement.

According to NPR, two major cases have already been decided this term. The Court gutted what remained of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, prompting Republicans in several Southern states to redraw congressional maps to diminish or eliminate majority-Black districts. It also struck down President Trump’s tariff program, ruling that Congress had not authorized it and that Trump exceeded his authority.

But the most difficult and controversial cases remain. Here is a breakdown of the key disputes awaiting resolution.

Birthright Citizenship: Trump v. Barbara

Perhaps the most consequential case of the term involves President Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas. The order, signed on the first day of Trump’s second term, never took effect because lower courts swiftly blocked it, finding it likely unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” As CBS News reports, if the Trump administration prevails, it would “upend more than 100 years of settled understanding” of the Citizenship Clause. During oral arguments in April, a majority of justices appeared poised to invalidate the executive order.

Executive Power: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook

Two cases present the most significant challenge to the structure of independent federal agencies since the New Deal. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court is weighing whether to overrule the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which limited the president’s ability to fire officials from multi-member agencies. Trump fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter — whom he had originally appointed in his first term — and the Court allowed the firing to go through on a temporary basis. The justices appeared likely to side with Trump, which would allow presidents to fire agency leaders at will.

However, the Court has signaled it may treat the Federal Reserve differently. In Trump v. Cook, Trump attempted to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the central bank’s board. No president before Trump had moved to fire a Fed governor in the bank’s 112-year history. The Supreme Court has allowed Cook to remain while weighing the case, describing the Fed as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.”

Transgender Athlete Bans: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

The Court heard arguments in January on whether state laws banning transgender girls and women from women’s sports violate the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Twenty-seven states have enacted such bans. The cases involve Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman challenging Idaho’s law, and Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender high school student challenging West Virginia’s law. The justices appeared likely to uphold the state bans, which would be a significant setback for transgender rights.

Mail-In Ballots: Watson v. Republican National Committee

With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, the Court is deciding whether states can count mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward. Twenty-nine states and D.C. currently allow some late-arriving ballots. The Republican National Committee argues that federal law requires Election Day as the absolute deadline. A ruling against grace periods could disenfranchise military voters, overseas voters, and others who rely on mail voting.

Temporary Protected Status: Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot

The Trump administration has moved to end Temporary Protected Status for migrants from 13 countries, including Haiti (over 300,000 people) and Syria (roughly 3,800). The administration argues that courts have no power to review TPS decisions. A ruling for Trump could authorize mass deportations of more than 1 million people who are currently living and working legally in the U.S.

Digital Privacy: Chatrie v. United States

The Court is confronting a novel Fourth Amendment question: whether police can use geofence warrants that require tech companies to search millions of users’ location data. The case involves a bank robbery investigation where Google was ordered to identify any users whose devices were near the crime scene. As NPR’s Nina Totenberg framed it, the question is whether this technique is “ingenious, Orwellian, or both.”

Gun Rights: Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani

Two gun cases await resolution. The first tests whether states can require advance permission to carry guns on private property open to the public. The second asks whether a federal law barring drug users from possessing guns violates the Second Amendment — a question with echoes of Hunter Biden’s conviction. Lower courts have found the Court’s 2022 Bruen decision confusing and difficult to administer, and these cases may provide much-needed guidance.

Campaign Finance: NRSC v. FEC

The Court is weighing whether federal limits on coordinated spending between candidates and party committees violate the First Amendment. The case was brought by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and Republican committees, and the Trump administration has urged the Court to strike down the restrictions.

What to Watch For

The Court’s conservative 6-3 supermajority has already delivered major victories for conservatives this term, but the pending cases cut across multiple areas of law and could produce complex, nuanced rulings. The justices may distinguish between different types of independent agencies, potentially preserving some protections for the Federal Reserve while dismantling them for others. On birthright citizenship, the Court’s originalist justices face a tension between their stated interpretive philosophy and Trump’s challenge to the plain text of the 14th Amendment.

Decisions are expected in the final weeks of June or early July. Each ruling will carry significant implications — for the balance of power between the branches of government, for the rights of millions of Americans and immigrants, and for the direction of the nation’s highest court in the years ahead.

Reporting contributed by Nina Totenberg of NPR and Melissa Quinn of CBS News.