The U.S. Supreme Court, operating with a 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to finish its present term in the coming days with several high-profile disputes still unresolved. The court has seven remaining cases on its docket and has designated Monday as its next date to release rulings. Supreme Court terms begin in October and generally conclude by late June, though the court sometimes issues decisions into early July.
Overview of the outstanding matters
Among the unresolved matters are three cases that directly test President Donald Trump’s expansive claims of presidential authority. Those challenges concern his efforts last year to remove a governor of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and an executive action intended to restrict birthright citizenship. Collectively, these disputes probe the constitutional limits of removal powers and executive directives.
In addition to the cases involving presidential power, the court will issue decisions in two election-related matters with potential implications for voting procedures ahead of the November midterm elections, and a case concerning state measures that ban transgender athletes from competing on female teams at public schools and universities. The court also heard arguments in a separate case from Virginia in April over the use of so-called geofence warrants by law enforcement, which rely on cellphone location data to identify potential suspects near crime scenes.
Trump’s efforts to remove federal officials
The justices considered arguments earlier in the year over President Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook, a governor on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. That move raised questions about the central bank’s independence because Cook’s removal would have been the first such action against a Fed official since the Fed’s creation in 1913. When Congress established the Federal Reserve, it included statutory protections intended to shield governors from political pressures by allowing removal only "for cause." The statute does not provide a definition of that phrase or a specific removal procedure.
Trump justified his action by citing mortgage fraud allegations that Cook has denied. Cook has remained in her role while the case proceeds and characterized the allegations as a pretext motivated by differences on monetary policy.
Separate proceedings involved the removal of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. Lower courts had found that the president exceeded his authority in that firing, but during December arguments conservative justices signaled they might uphold the removal, and the court allowed Slaughter’s removal to stand while legal challenges continued.
In presenting the administration’s position, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the court to overturn a long-standing Supreme Court precedent from a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which has constrained presidential removal powers by protecting leaders of certain independent agencies. While the court has narrowed the scope of that precedent in recent decades, it has not fully overturned it. At arguments, several conservative justices appeared receptive to the notion that statutory tenure protections for heads of independent agencies may impinge on presidential authority under the Constitution.
Election-related disputes
Two cases touching on voting procedures are scheduled for decision as political parties campaign for control of Congress in November. One involves a Mississippi law that allows a five-day grace period for mail-in ballots to be counted if they were postmarked on or before Election Day but received up to five business days after the election. A lower court struck down that law. During arguments in March, conservative justices expressed skepticism toward the law, which the administration supported in its challenge. If the court upholds the challenge, it could result in tighter voting rules that affect mail-in ballot processing in other jurisdictions.
Another case seeks to invalidate federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, in litigation that involves Vice President JD Vance. The dispute centers on whether such limits violate the First Amendment’s protection against government restrictions on speech. The court heard argument in December, with some conservative justices appearing sympathetic to the challenge and the court’s liberal justices inclined to maintain the restrictions. A lower court had upheld the existing spending limits.
Separately, President Trump issued an executive order in March intended to curb mail-in voting nationwide. That order faced immediate legal obstacles, and a federal judge in Boston blocked its implementation on a Thursday prior to the court’s expected rulings.
Transgender athletes and geofence warrants
In January, the justices considered challenges to laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender athletes from participating on female sports teams at public schools, including collegiate programs. The states defended the measures on the grounds that they preserve fair competition for women and girls, while opponents view the laws as part of broader efforts to restrict rights of transgender Americans. During oral argument, conservative justices appeared inclined to uphold the state laws.
In April, the court heard argument in a Virginia case focused on whether a law enforcement practice known as a geofence warrant violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. Geofence warrants seek to identify potential suspects by obtaining cellphone location data for devices present in a geographic area near a crime scene. The court’s decision in that case will address the constitutional boundary for such location-based searches by authorities.
Recent decisions and context within the term
The court has already issued rulings favorable to the president in two immigration-related cases earlier in the week, and it has repeatedly sided with the administration in emergency rulings since the president returned to office, allowing policies that lower courts had blocked to take effect while legal challenges proceed. However, the court also delivered a setback to the president in February by rejecting his broad use of tariffs invoked under a law intended for national emergencies.
As the justices prepare to issue their remaining decisions, the outcomes will clarify the reach of presidential removal authority, the scope of protections for officials at independent agencies, rules governing mail-in voting and campaign spending limits, protections for transgender athletes in public-school athletics, and constitutional limits on modern investigative tools such as geofence warrants.