The Supreme Court still has 20 opinions outstanding as the 2025–26 term nears its close, including cases involving birthright citizenship, presidential removal authority, campaign finance, mail ballots, asylum and transgender athletes.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Supreme Court is approaching the end of its term with several major rulings still pending, leaving unresolved disputes that could reshape federal law on presidential power, immigration, election rules, campaign finance and school sports.
The justices have already issued dozens of opinions this term, but 20 decisions remain outstanding as the court moves toward its final announcements, according to a Just the News report. Among the cases still awaiting rulings are challenges tied to President Donald Trump’s executive authority, federal agency independence, voting deadlines, campaign spending limits, asylum access, Temporary Protected Status and birthright citizenship.
One of the most closely watched cases is Trump v. Barbara, which challenges Trump’s Inauguration Day 2025 executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present or in the country on temporary visas.
The case centers on the 14th Amendment and the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” language that has long been understood to cover nearly all children born on U.S. soil. That interpretation has been tied for more than a century to the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
The case was argued April 1, 2026, with Trump attending the proceedings. Several justices questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer about whether the executive branch could unilaterally reinterpret a constitutional provision that courts have applied for generations. A majority appeared skeptical of the administration’s position, though the ruling remains pending.
The court is also weighing two significant cases involving the president’s power to remove federal officials.
In Trump v. Slaughter, the justices are considering whether the president may remove members of certain independent federal agencies without cause. The dispute followed Trump’s removal of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Slaughter argues that federal law allows FTC commissioners to be removed only for specified causes, while the administration says such limits unlawfully restrict presidential authority.
A ruling for the administration could affect the structure of multiple independent agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
A related case, Trump v. Cook, involves Trump’s removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Federal Reserve Act states that members of the Board of Governors may be removed only “for cause.” Trump fired Cook in August 2025 after the administration cited disputed allegations that she misrepresented her residency on a mortgage application before joining the board.
Lower courts blocked Cook’s removal, and the Supreme Court took the case on an expedited schedule. During arguments, several justices questioned whether courts can review presidential removal decisions in that setting.
The court is also poised to issue a major campaign finance ruling in NRSC v. FEC. The case was brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and its House counterpart and was originally championed by then-Sen. JD Vance.
The plaintiffs are challenging Federal Election Commission rules that limit how much political parties may spend in coordination with their own candidates. They argue that the restrictions violate the First Amendment by limiting a party’s ability to support its nominees. The FEC says the rules help prevent circumvention of contribution limits and reduce corruption risks.
Legal scholars have described the case as potentially the most consequential campaign finance decision since Citizens United v. FEC in 2010.
Another pending case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, could affect mail voting rules ahead of the November midterm elections. The case challenges a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days afterward.
Republican leaders argue that the grace period violates federal laws establishing a single national Election Day. A ruling could set a national standard for mail ballot deadlines and potentially invalidate similar laws in other states, leaving states with little time to adjust before the midterms.
The justices are also considering two Title IX cases involving transgender athletes in school sports.
Little v. Hecox concerns an Idaho law barring transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams. West Virginia v. B.P.J. raises similar questions involving West Virginia’s law. Together, the cases ask whether state laws that categorically exclude transgender females from women’s sports violate Title IX.
The cases have drawn extensive advocacy from both sides, with dozens of states filing amicus briefs. The rulings could determine whether transgender athletes may participate in school sports consistent with their gender identity nationwide or whether states may set their own restrictions.
Immigration cases also make up a major portion of the remaining docket.
In Mullin v. Miot, consolidated with Mullin v. Dahlia Doe and Trump v. Miot, the court will decide whether the administration lawfully revoked Temporary Protected Status for about 350,000 Haitian nationals and 6,100 Syrian nationals living in the United States.
Temporary Protected Status is granted to people from countries affected by armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions that make return unsafe. Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended the Haitian and Syrian designations after concluding that conditions had changed enough to justify termination.
During arguments, several conservative justices focused on whether federal courts have authority to review TPS termination decisions. If the court adopts that position, future decisions affecting more than 1 million immigrants currently living under the program could be shielded from judicial review.
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the court is considering a challenge to the government’s former “metering” policy at the southern border. Under that policy, Customs and Border Protection officers turned away asylum seekers at ports of entry and required them to wait on the Mexican side of the border before being allowed to present themselves for inspection.
The Ninth Circuit declared the policy unlawful, and the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling. The case turns on whether asylum seekers who reach a port of entry, but have not physically crossed into the United States, have “arrived in the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act and therefore cannot be turned away without processing.
Beyond the pending opinions, the end of the term has generated speculation about possible retirements.
Justices Samuel Alito, 76, and Clarence Thomas, who turns 78 later this month, are the court’s two oldest conservatives. Some Republicans have urged both justices to retire while a Republican president and GOP-controlled Senate could confirm successors. Trump has said he is prepared to fill vacancies if they occur.
Reports citing sources close to Alito say he is not planning to step down. Some observers have also pointed to his forthcoming memoir, scheduled for October near the start of the next term, as a sign that he intends to remain on the court. Thomas has also indicated in various settings that he has no plans to retire.
A retirement announcement before the November elections could trigger a major confirmation fight, particularly because control of the Senate could shift after the midterms.
With rulings still pending on executive power, immigration, election law, campaign finance and civil rights, the final weeks of the 2025–26 Supreme Court term are expected to carry major legal and political consequences.
Original article
Comments