Supreme Court decision guide

Thank you for signing up!

Subscribe to more newsletters here

Supreme Court decision season is here. 

President Trump’s firings of officials long considered independent. His birthright citizenship restrictions. Transgender athlete bans. Guns. Campaign finance rules. 

It’s a packed docket. 

At least one of the 35 remaining argued cases is expected to be decided on Thursday at 10 a.m. EDT, when the justices will take the bench to unofficially kick off the end-of-spring dash.  

If historical trends hold, Thursday opinion drops will become a weekly cadence, with additional days typically added in the final weeks as the justices aim to finish their work by the end of June.  

We’ll recap the decisions every week in The Gavel. For real-time coverage from inside the Supreme Court as opinions drop, keep your eyes peeled to our live blog posts at TheHill.com. 

Here’s what to expect. 

Case name: Trump v. Slaughter 

Question: Can the president fire independent agency leaders without cause? 

Why it matters: The independence of independent agencies is on the line, along with a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent. Rebecca Slaughter, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member, challenged Trump’s decision to fire her without cause. She’s one of a dozen officials removed by Trump despite federal law providing them for-cause removal protections, prompting several legal challenges asserting that independent agency leaders should not be subject to the whims of the White House. Lower courts largely ruled against Trump, finding they are still bound by the 1935 Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. But the justices have the authority to overturn the high court’s own precedents. 

Case name: Trump v. Cook 

Question: Can Trump fire the Federal Reserve’s Lisa Cook as her legal challenge proceeds? 

Why it matters: The justices have so far signaled that the Fed stands apart from other independent agencies, but Cook’s case may test those limitations. Trump fired Cook after the Federal Housing Finance Agency accused her of mortgage fraud, which she denies. She has conversely claimed that her termination was tied to the Fed’s failure to lower interest rates at the speed at which Trump desired. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 permits the president to remove Fed governors “for cause” but it doesn’t explicitly define “cause.” The case now turns on how the justices interpret it.  

Case name: Trump v. Barbara 

Question: Are Trump’s birthright citizenship restrictions constitutional? 

Why it matters: At stake is one of Trump’s Day 1 immigration policies. His executive order would limit birthright citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil to at least one parent with permanent legal status. Opponents say it violates the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee, and a federal law defining citizenship Congress passed decades later. 

Case name: Mullin v. Doe / Trump v. Miot 

Question: Can the Trump administration terminate countries from the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program? 

Why it matters: The decision will dictate if Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can strip temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of noncitizens. TPS provides nationals from designated countries experiencing armed conflict or natural disasters with deportation protections and a work authorization pathway. Contending the Biden administration abused the program, Trump’s DHS has sought to end most of the 17 countries’ participation, insisting judges have no authority to intervene. 

Case name: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission 

Question: Do federal limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment? 

Why it matters: A landmark 2001 Supreme Court decision on campaign finance could be no more. At the heart of the case is whether federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and their candidates violate the First Amendment’s free speech protections, as Vice President J.D. Vance, who brought the challenge as a senator, and the other Republican challengers contend. Defenders of the limits say they help prevent corruption.  

Case name: Watson v. Republican National Committee 

Question: Can states accept mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day? 

Why it matters: Midterms are coming up, and changes to the rules surrounding mail-in ballots could have major implications for the 2026 contests. The justices are weighing the legality of Mississippi’s statute allowing a five-day grace period for ballots postmarked by Election Day but received afterward, and more than a dozen states have similar laws. The Republican National Committee and Libertarian Party of Mississippi contend that federal election law sets out just one Election Day: the first Tuesday in November.  

TRANSGENDER ATHLETE BANS

Case names: Little v. Hecox / West Virginia v. B.P.J. 

Question: Can states bar transgender girls from competing on girls and women’s school sports teams? 

Why it matters: It’s set to be one of the court’s biggest decisions on transgender protections. The decision will dictate the future of Republican-led efforts in 27 states to ban transgender athletes from girls school sports teams. The laws have sparked challenges from transgender athletes who claim they violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee and Title IX, the landmark law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools.  The justices are specifically considering laws in Idaho and West Virginia.  

Case name: United States v. Hemani 

Question: Does the federal crime for unlawful drug users possessing a firearm violate the Second Amendment? 

Why it matters: It will further clarify the bounds of the conservative majority’s expanded Second Amendment test, which requires a historical analogue to justify modern gun........

© The Hill