Executive power, tariffs and voting rights on the docket as the 2025-26 Supreme Court term kicks off
The Supreme Court began a new term Monday — one poised to shape the direction of U.S. policy and presidential power, legal experts say.
After a summer recess that offered little respite, the Supreme Court began a new term Monday — one poised to yet again shape the direction of U.S. policy and presidential power in consequential ways, legal experts say.
“The big picture here: this is a term where you’re going to see more clashes between [President Donald] Trump’s view of the power of the presidency and the Supreme Court’s view of the power of the presidency,” says Dan Urman, director of the law and public policy minor at Northeastern University, who teaches courses on the Supreme Court.
The top cases include a host of Trump administration policies and executive actions, including the former president’s sweeping tariff policies, his authority to fire federal agency heads, and his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
Other notable cases include legal challenges to state laws barring transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports; a dispute over Louisiana’s congressional map with implications for the 1965 Voting Rights Act; and a free speech case involving Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy.”
The court typically breaks in late June or early July for a three-month recess. That wasn’t the case this year, as the justices faced a surge of emergency applications related to the Trump administration’s actions in recent months. That resulted in more than 20 so-called “shadow docket” decisions.
Procedurally, those decisions are often issued after very limited briefing and no oral argument. The shadow docket, Urman says, is “without a doubt taking up an increasing amount of the court’s time.”
These are five major cases to keep an eye on this term.
Learning Resources v. Trump; Trump v. V.O.S. Selections
Shortly after taking office, Trump imposed dozens of new tariffs on countries around the world, prompting legal challenges from numerous groups and businesses. The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases: one in which small businesses asked the court to issue a ruling with haste (Learning Resources v. Trump); another in which the administration asked it to review a ruling from a federal appeals court that struck down the tariffs (Trump v. V.O.S. Selections).
At the center of the court’s review of the two cases is whether the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from key trading partners. Trump invoked the law — which does not explicitly mention tariffs — arguing that U.S. trade deficits constituted a “national emergency.”
The Supreme Court will hold a hearing on the matter in November.
In March, Trump fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, the two registered Democrats serving on the FTC.
The court granted certiorari in the case, but stayed a lower court decision that ordered the administration to allow Slaughter to return to her post. The result effectively meant that Trump could move ahead with Slaughter’s firing.
The court agreed to decide on whether the firings fell within the president’s purview — yet another test that could “dramatically upend” precedent and reshape executive authority.
Wendy Parmet, Matthews Distinguished Professor of Law and Professor of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University, says the court may be looking to overturn precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 decision that limited the president’s ability to remove officials from independent agencies without cause.
A hearing is set for December.
Trump also attempted to fire Lisa Cook over the summer, citing allegations that she had been engaging in mortgage fraud.
Editor’s Picks
Last week, the Supreme Court declined to overturn a lower court ruling that sided with Cook, effectively allowing her to remain in the post. The court will hear oral arguments in January.
Federal law provides that each member of the Federal Reserve Board serve a 14-year term, staggered across administrations to insulate the central bank from political influence. Though presidents nominate and the Senate confirms, the long terms are meant to stop any single administration from “stacking the deck” with politically favorable nominees.
In another consequential case, the Supreme Court is set to decide whether Louisiana’s congressional map — redrawn with race in mind to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — violates the Constitution.
Opponents of the map claim that a second majority-Black district amounts to racial gerrymandering. At its core, the case weighs the state’s obligation to protect minority voting power against claims that the new map gives race undue weight — raising major questions about the future of so-called race-conscious or race-based redistricting.
The case puts the Voting Rights Act on uncertain ground by testing whether states can consider race to ensure fair representation for Black voters without violating the Constitution — a tension that could limit the law’s power in future redistricting fights.
West Virginia v. B.P.J.; Little v. Hecox
Rounding out the list is a legal challenge against a state law that bars transgender students from girls’ teams. The West Virginia state legislature passed a law banning transgender students from joining sports teams that align with their gender identity. The challenge to the West Virginia law (West Virginia v. B.P.J.) will be reviewed alongside a separate case (Little v. Hecox) involving a similar law passed by the Idaho state legislature.
The court will consider whether these laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment — or, in West Virginia’s case, whether they conflict with Title IX’s protections against sex-based discrimination.
