Texas Border Business
Texas Border Business
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue nine major decisions before the end of June that could affect immigration, elections, presidential authority, campaign finance, and other national issues, according to The Morning Brief. The court’s 2025–2026 term is nearing its conclusion, with pending cases expected to influence social policies and parts of President Donald Trump’s agenda.
One of the most closely watched cases concerns birthright citizenship. President Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office seeking to limit automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to parents without legal immigration status. The order states that citizenship under the 14th Amendment applies only to children with at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. In Trump v. Barbara, the administration asked the Supreme Court to step in after a federal judge blocked the order. During proceedings, the justices reportedly appeared skeptical of the administration’s position.
Cases involving girls’ and women’s sports are also pending. The court heard arguments in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ, which concern state laws in Idaho and West Virginia barring males from participating in girls’ and women’s sports. Lower courts blocked the laws, citing the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Immigration policy is also before the court. In cases involving deportation protections for Haitians and Syrians, the justices are considering whether federal judges exceeded their authority after blocking the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of temporary protected status. Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended those protections last year, prompting legal challenges. Oral arguments in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Mayat took place on April 29.
Another case involves Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup and whether federal law overrides state liability claims. In Monsanto v. Durnell, the company challenged a Missouri court’s ruling finding it liable for failing to warn about glyphosate’s alleged risks. Monsanto argued that the ruling conflicted with federal law, raising questions about legal preemption, the principle that federal law takes priority over conflicting state laws.
The Supreme Court is also considering presidential authority to remove federal officials. In Trump v. Slaughter, the administration challenged a lower court decision blocking the dismissal of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. According to The Morning Brief, the justices appeared open to expanding presidential authority in such cases, a move that could overturn a 1935 precedent limiting a president’s power to remove certain independent agency officials.
The court is also reviewing presidential authority over the Federal Reserve. Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook challenged Trump’s effort to remove her from office, citing protections under the Federal Reserve Act. According to The Morning Brief, the justices appeared more likely to support Cook, reflecting the court’s previous views that the Federal Reserve operates with greater independence than agencies such as the FTC.
Another pending case focuses on election procedures. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, Trump and the Republican National Committee argue that states allowing mailed ballots to arrive after Election Day, if postmarked by that date, violate federal law defining Election Day as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” According to The Morning Brief, the justices appeared more likely to side with the Republican National Committee during oral arguments.
Campaign finance limits are also under review. In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the court is examining whether restrictions on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates violate the First Amendment. The case began with a lawsuit involving then-Senate candidate J.D. Vance.The court is also expected to address how states determine intellectual disability in death penalty cases. A 2002 Supreme Court ruling barred the execution of people who are mentally or intellectually disabled, but lower
