The end of the Supreme Court's term is always packed with major decisions, and this year is no exception.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two major immigration victories. In one 6-3 ruling, the justices allowed officials to turn away many asylum seekers before they enter the U.S. under a policy known as "metering." In another decision (also split along ideological lines), they cleared the way for the administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians while legal challenges continue, strengthening the administration's position in other pending TPS disputes. Trump celebrated the rulings as a "tremendous win."
It's still unclear whether the outcomes of those cases offer any clues about the court's highly anticipated birthright citizenship decision, which is expected on Monday.
Here's a closer look at what's at stake — and the other major opinions still to come.
Birthright citizenship could face its biggest test in generations
For more than a century, it’s been widely understood that nearly anyone born in the U.S. automatically becomes a citizen, but that longstanding interpretation could now be at risk.
On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily. Lower courts quickly blocked the policy, finding it likely unconstitutional.
Now, the Supreme Court is weighing whether Trump’s order clashes with the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which has long been understood to grant citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.
The court heard arguments in April, and several justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s position, signaling that the president’s directive could ultimately be struck down. A ruling against the administration would mark a major setback for one of the central pieces of Trump’s immigration agenda.
If the administration does prevail, though, the decision could upend more than 100 years of legal precedent surrounding the 14th Amendment and who is entitled to citizenship at birth.
The Court could further weaken voting-rights protections
With primary elections already happening as we approach midterms, one of the Supreme Court’s most anticipated remaining rulings could affect how millions of Americans cast their ballots in future elections.
In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the justices are considering whether states can continue counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day as long as they were postmarked on time — a practice currently allowed in 15 states, including New York and Illinois, and Washington, D.C.
The dispute centers on a Mississippi law that gives election officials five extra business days to receive mail ballots. The RNC argues that the policy violates an 1845 federal law establishing Election Day as a single day in November, meaning ballots must arrive by then to be counted. But Michael Watson, Mississippi’s Republican secretary of state and the named defendant in the case, argues that ballots postmarked by Election Day should still count, saying stricter deadlines could disenfranchise voters because of mail delays outside their control — especially military members overseas, rural voters, and older Americans.
During oral arguments in March, several conservative justices appeared at least sympathetic to the GOP-backed challenge, voicing concerns about prolonged vote counting and election administration. A ruling against Mississippi could force states nationwide to rewrite mail-voting laws ahead of the 2026 midterms, setting off a scramble to adjust election procedures.
The case also arrives as the Supreme Court continues to narrow key voting-rights protections. In April, the court handed down a major decision in Louisiana v. Callais, making it harder to challenge congressional maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — a ruling that voting rights groups say could weaken key protections against racial discrimination in redistricting.
Trump’s firing powers could dramatically expand
Several of the Supreme Court’s remaining cases could redefine just how much authority a president has to fire officials Congress sought to shield from political pressure.
One of the biggest challenges centers on the Federal Trade Commission. Trump moved to remove Rebecca Slaughter, an FTC commissioner who argued her firing violated a century-old law allowing presidents to dismiss commissioners only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” After lower courts temporarily reinstated her, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and allowed the firing to move forward while the legal battle continues.
The case could have sweeping implications for presidential power because it asks the justices to reconsider the landmark 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which limited a president’s ability to remove leaders of certain independent agencies. If the court sides with Trump, it could dramatically expand White House control over agencies like the FTC that Congress designed to operate with a degree of independence.
The ruling could also shape future fights involving other independent agencies, including the Federal Reserve.
Trump also attempted to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors — something no president had done in the central bank’s 112-year history.
The move comes after Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte alleged that Cook provided inaccurate information in mortgage filings for two properties before she was nominated to the Fed Board by former President Joe Biden in 2021. Trump argued the allegations constituted “sufficient cause” for her removal, while Cook denied wrongdoing and sued to keep her position.
Unlike the FTC case, however, the Supreme Court has so far appeared reluctant to extend broad presidential firing powers to the Fed. Lower courts and the justices have allowed Cook to remain on the board while the case proceeds, and the Court has notably described the Federal Reserve as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” with a distinct constitutional history.
And that distinction could prove significant: While the court’s conservative majority appears open to giving presidents greater authority over some independent agencies, several justices have signaled they see the Fed differently because of its unique role in managing the nation’s economy and operating independently from the White House.
The justices could uphold state bans on transgender athletes
At least 27 states, including Texas and South Carolina, have enacted laws or regulations restricting transgender students from participating on school sports teams that align with their gender identity. Now, two of those measures are before the Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
The cases stem from laws in Idaho and West Virginia, both of which bar transgender girls from competing on female sports teams. Idaho became the first state in the nation to enact such a ban, though a federal appeals court later ruled the law was likely unconstitutional. But after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the transgender woman at the center of the challenge, Lindsay Hecox, asked for it to be dismissed after voluntarily agreeing to drop her claims against the state.
The West Virginia case centers on Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender high school student who began socially transitioning in third grade and has since taken puberty-delaying medication and hormone therapy. A federal appeals court ruled that West Virginia unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in January and appeared inclined to uphold the state restrictions.
A new test for campaign spending limits
Democrats and Republicans alike are bracing for a Supreme Court ruling that could fundamentally reshape how campaigns are funded — and how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in the battle for control of Congress.
In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court is weighing whether federal limits on coordination between political parties and candidates violate the First Amendment. Republicans — led by the NRSC and then-Senate candidate JD Vance — challenged the rules in 2022, arguing the restrictions are unconstitutional.
The case could dismantle a decades-old system that keeps certain parties' spending separate from campaigns. Under current law, party committees face limits on how closely they can coordinate with candidates, forcing them to rely on legally separate “independent expenditure” arms to spend heavily on advertising in competitive races.
A ruling in favor of the NRSC could dramatically change that structure. Candidates are entitled by law to the lowest possible rates for television advertising — a discount unavailable to outside groups like super PACs and party committees. In practice, that means candidates can often spend far less for the same airtime than outside political organizations.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the coordination limits, party committees could effectively gain access to those lower advertising rates by working more directly with candidates, allowing their fundraising dollars to stretch significantly further in battleground races.
According to Politico, Democrats have generally benefited more from the current system because they’ve been particularly successful at raising small-dollar donations directly for candidates since 2018, though Republicans have narrowed the gap in recent cycles. A decision siding with the NRSC could therefore shift not just campaign strategy, but the broader financial dynamics that have defined congressional elections for years.
