The Supreme Court is expected to wrap up its term this week, with eight cases still awaiting rulings, including some of the most intensely debated of the past year.
The court’s next release of decisions will take place this morning at 10 a.m., when rulings in some of the remaining cases will be announced. The next decision day will be revealed after that.
Last week saw the court hand the Trump administration major wins, giving a green light to some of its moves on immigration policy. But a ruling on the contentious issue of birthright citizenship is still pending, along with the president’s right to fire federal appointees and the rights of transgender athletes, among other issues.
Here’s the biggest rulings that remain pending before the court this term:
Birthright citizenship
Arguably the most anticipated ruling is on President Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship, which was one of his first acts after returning as president last year.
Justices seemed skeptical of the administration’s arguments defending the order when they heard the case in April. In a sign of how important Trump has viewed the case, he became the first sitting president ever recorded to have attended Supreme Court arguments as a listener.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Trump’s order calls for only providing that right for children born on U.S. soil who have at least one parent who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The administration’s argument would require a significant reinterpretation of the longstanding amendment. Even Trump has said he expects he’ll lose on birthright citizenship.
Federal Trade Commission removal protections
A decades-old precedent could be overturned if the court rules in Trump’s favor on his attempts to fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter.
Trump decided to remove Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner who was first appointed in 2018, last year because her service was “inconsistent” with the administration’s policies. The act setting up the FTC only permits the president to remove commissioners for cause, and the Supreme Court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States upheld that barrier.
But a majority of the court appeared open to allowing Trump to fire Slaughter without cause during arguments held in December. The ruling could also have wide-ranging implications for other federal agencies, limiting their independence from the president.
Federal Reserve’s independence
One federal agency that the high court has seemed more inclined to protect is the Federal Reserve, which could be critical in saving board of governors member Lisa Cook’s job.
Trump sought to fire Cook last summer over allegations of mortgage fraud against her, making him the first president to try to remove a sitting Fed governor in its history. Cook has rejected the allegations and argued the Justice Department investigation into her was politically motivated.
No charges have been filed against her.
Most justices seemed to be leaning against allowing Cook to be dismissed, expressing concern about what it would mean for the independence of the Fed. Trump’s push to fire her came as he has tried to pressure the agency to be more aggressive in lowering interest rates.
Transgender athlete ban
The fate of more than two dozen state laws banning transgender female students competing on girls and women’s sports teams hangs in the balance in the latest major LGBTQ case to reach the court.
The court’s conservative majority seemed open to arguments in January from Idaho and West Virginia defending their bans, showing skepticism to contentions that they broadly discriminate based on sex or gender. There have been 27 states in total that have passed laws prohibiting transgender female athletes from competing on teams consistent with their identity.
The case comes a year after the court upheld a ban that Tennessee enacted on gender-affirming care for minors. LGBTQ advocates have at times achieved surprise victories in recent years before the court, but the court’s conservative bent gives them an uphill battle for the case.
Mail-in ballots
The court’s decision in a case concerning mail-in ballots could have significant implications for the midterms as Democrats and Republicans battle for control of Congress.
The justices are weighing a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by the time polls close on Election Day and reach election officials within five days. More than a dozen states and Washington, D.C., have similar laws in place.
The Republican National Committee is challenging the law, arguing federal law states Election Day for federal offices is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, preempting the state law. The court’s majority seemed to agree during March arguments.
If the Mississippi law is struck down, it would potentially require a dozen other states to enact new procedures this November. The ruling would only affect the general election in federal elections, so mail-in ballots in primaries and state races would be unaffected.
▪ The Hill: MAHA feels betrayed after Supreme Court ruling.
▪ The Hill: Postmaster general’s remarks on mail-in ballots stoke fears.
