...
By Dan Gooding and Gabe Whisnant
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The United States Supreme Court has left President Donald Trump waiting on three of the most consequential decisions of its current term, setting the stage for rulings that could reshape immigration policy, civil rights law and election rules ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Cases on birthright citizenship, transgender athletes in school sports and mail-in voting are among those still pending, underscoring what court watchers describe as an unusually high-stakes “June boom,” when the justices traditionally release their most divisive decisions.
The Supreme Court is next scheduled to release opinions on Monday, with the term likely wrapping up by late June or early July.
Read More on U.S.
...
What’s at Stake for Trump’s Agenda
On birthright citizenship, which was the centerpiece of one of Trump’s early executive actions, some legal analysts expect the administration to face a significant defeat. The president himself has also said, on more than one occasion, that he expects the justices to rule against him.
"A negative ruling on Birthright Citizenship, on top of the recent Supreme Court Tariff catastrophe, is not Economically sustainable for the United States of America!" Trump wrote in a lengthy post on Truth Social in May. In an April post, he said, "If they [the Supreme Court] rule against our Country on Birthright Citizenship, which they probably will, it will be even worse, if that’s possible. It will cost America massive amounts of money but, more importantly, it will cost America its DIGNITY!"
At the same time, other rulings this term have shown the High Court willing to expand presidential authority in certain areas. Columbia Law School professor Gillian Metzger has described a broader trend of the court reinforcing executive power, even “against the backdrop of a president who was exercising pretty aggressive executive power.”
That mixed record has heightened uncertainty about how far the court will go in either curbing or endorsing Trump’s priorities in its final decisions. Taken together, the remaining cases directly intersect with key pillars of Trump’s policy agenda on immigration, education and election law.
Birthright Citizenship: A Test of the 14th Amendment
The most closely watched case, often described as the term’s biggest, centers on Trump’s 2025 executive order seeking to deny automatic citizenship to some children born in the United States.
The Trump v. Barbara dispute hinges on the post-Civil War 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees citizenship to those “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Speaking to Fox News' Will Cain on Thursday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said, "There should be a 9-0 ruling [on birthright citizenship] in a functioning democracy. The idea that you could have a country where you just set foot on U.S. soil, and any child you have can be an American citizen, sit on our juries, sit in judgment of our fellow men and women, it's outrageous."
Lower courts have uniformly blocked the policy, finding it likely unconstitutional. Several of the Supreme Court's conservative justices sounded skeptical of the Trump administration's hard-line immigration order during May's oral arguments.
Legal experts say a ruling in Trump’s favor could upend more than a century of precedent dating back to the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, while a decision against the administration would deal a major blow to its immigration agenda.
"The birthright case had one of the latest oral arguments this year, so it is not surprising the opinion is coming at the end of the term," Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, which argued on the case, told Newsweek. "The Trump administration is trying to change who counts as American, but the constitutional text, precedent, and history are clear: If you are born in this country, you belong here."
However, the High Court has delivered shock decisions in the recent past, including on abortion rights in the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
If rewriting birthright citizenship is allowed to go ahead, Asian and Latino families could be most affected, according to Nicole Kreisberg, assistant professor of public policy and sociology at Penn State who has studied the potential impact of the change.
"What's at stake here is all the people who are in the United States without any documentations whatsoever, but also who are here in the United States entirely legally, who've done nothing wrong, broken no rules, have maintained valid status, could even be waiting for a green card," she told Newsweek.
"Those people have the risk of their unborn children becoming either undocumented or stateless, depending on what the Trump administration decides."
Men's US Soccer Team Highlights the Issue
Six players on the U.S. men's national soccer team at the 2026 FIFA World Cup were born outside the country.
More than half the 26 men on the roster hold dual citizenship, while the striker who scored twice in America's opening 4-1 victory over Paraguay was eligible to play only because of a legal provision the Trump administration has sought to eliminate.
Folarin Balogun's two goals against Paraguay might never have happened had his parents' plans gone differently. The striker's birth in the United States was unplanned, occurring while his Nigerian parents were temporarily living in New York.
The player's family history thew the birthright citizenship issue into the spotlight as the country awaits the Supreme Court's decision.
...
Transgender Athletes: A National Fight Over School Sports
A second major ruling will address whether states can restrict transgender students, particularly transgender girls, from competing in girls’ sports.
The court is considering cases including Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., which pit state laws against claims of discrimination under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.
In January, the court’s conservative majority—which has ruled in several cases involving transgender Americans in the last two terms—signaled it is likely to uphold state bans, determining that they do not violate the Constitution or Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education.
“I play for my school for the same reason other kids on my track team do–to make friends, have fun, and challenge myself through practice and teamwork,” Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, of Bridgeport, West Virginia, said in a press release following oral arguments on her case in January. “And all I’ve ever wanted was the same opportunities as my peers.
"But in 2021, politicians in my state passed a law banning me–the only transgender student athlete in the entire state–from playing as who I really am," Pepper-Jackson added. "This is unfair to me and every transgender kid who just wants the freedom to be themselves."
The outcome could determine the fate of similar laws already enacted in dozens of states and set a nationwide precedent on how federal civil rights protections apply to transgender students.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said during January's oral arguments, "For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn't get on the stand for the medal or doesn't make all-league, there's a harm there, and I think we can't sweep that aside."
Legal analysts say the decision could extend far beyond athletics, potentially shaping how courts interpret transgender rights in education and employment settings more broadly.
...
Mail-In Ballots: Implications for the 2026 Midterms
The court is also weighing a key election-law dispute over whether states can count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward.
The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee (RNC), was brought by Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican, who argued that the act of marking and submitting a ballot meant the voter had made their decision and should be counted, whether it arrived before Election Day or not.
“States have broad power over elections. Throughout our history, they’ve used that power to change how they hold elections… The question is whether Congress blocked just one change—allowing ballots cast by Election Day to be received after that day. The answer is no," John B. Stewart, representing Watson, said during Supreme Court arguments in March.
The RNC has argued that a federal law from 1845 defined Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and that this meant ballots must arrive by that date.
“Watson v. RNC is about a simple principle: ballots must be received by Election Day. This prevents elections from dragging on for days and weeks after voters have cast their ballots, causing confusion and undermining our elections," Ally Triolo, the RNC’s election integrity communications director, said in a statement shared with Newsweek in March. "83 percent of voters agree ballots should be in by Election Day, and 78 percent say it makes elections more secure."
During oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared persuaded that counting ballots arriving after Election Day may conflict with federal law, reflecting skepticism toward Mississippi’s argument that ballots are “cast” when sent rather than when received.
The case, which challenges laws similar to those used in multiple states that offer a grace period for mail-in votes, could have immediate consequences if the High Court strikes such provisions down. Election officials could be forced to quickly adjust procedures, raising concerns about confusion in upcoming federal races.
Trump has sought to restrict mail-in ballots, despite using them himself, arguing that they are ripe for election fraud. In a ruling Thursday, a federal judge blocked efforts he had made through an executive order, which would have allowed the United States Postal Service to not deliver some ballots.
A Defining Moment for the Court
The 2025-2026 term has highlighted a Supreme Court grappling with how far to extend or restrain government power across a range of high-stakes disputes. From cases involving civil rights and immigration to a closely watched ruling on tariffs, the justices have been asked to define the limits of presidential authority while navigating deeply contested political terrain.
The term has also seen Trump openly criticize and seek to influence the court’s decisions.
After a 6-3 ruling against his global tariffs in March, Trump posted on Truth Social, "This completely inept and embarrassing Court was not what the Supreme Court of the United States was set up by our wonderful Founders to be. They are hurting our Country, and will continue to do so."
As the final decisions are issued, their rulings are likely to shape not only the immediate fate of Trump-era policies but also the legal boundaries that will govern future clashes over federal power, individual rights and the administration of elections.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines