The Supreme Court is poised to issue up to 20 remaining decisions in the coming days, with potentially landmark rulings as early as June 18 that will determine the constitutional boundaries of executive authority and reshape the balance of power between the presidency and Congress. The justices are racing to complete their term by month's end, with decisions pending on presidential control over independent agencies, birthright citizenship, immigration enforcement, and electoral integrity.
Presidential Authority Over Federal Agencies
In a case that could fundamentally alter the structure of federal governance, a majority of the justices appeared ready to side with Trump on the issue of presidential control over independent agencies, a decision that could redefine how more than a dozen agencies operate and shift power from Congress to the White House. The court is also weighing whether President Donald Trump can fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, though the justices seemed unlikely to permit such removal during oral arguments.
In yet another dispute over presidential power, Trump argued the courts have no say in his decision to end deportation protections for Syrians and Haitians. The administration counters that the law creating the Temporary Status Protection Program bars any judicial review of which migrants may live and work in the United States. Immigrant rights advocates are challenging the terminations, saying the administration reached predetermined conclusions about whether Syria and Haiti are safe for the migrants to return to.
Birthright Citizenship Challenge
After the Supreme Court ruled against President Donald Trump's tariffs in January, Trump predicted the justices would also strike down his effort to sharply limit who qualifies for automatic U.S. citizenship. Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term directing federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of babies born in the United States if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order is widely viewed as a legal long shot, and the justices have more than one way to stop it. They could rule that the order violates the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The court could also rule against Trump more narrowly by finding that his executive order violates a 1952 immigration law.
Border Security and Asylum Processing
The administration also wants the option of bringing back a migrant management practice to limit the number of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. Under the practice, federal officials stand at the border and prevent undocumented migrants from physically setting foot on U.S. soil, at which point they would have the right to seek asylum under U.S. law. The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling requiring the government to process claims from people who reach a port of entry.
Electoral Integrity and Voting Rights
In one of the biggest cases of the term, the Supreme Court has already shaken up this year's elections. An ideologically divided court on April 29 severely limited the scope of the landmark Voting Rights Act, making it harder for racial minorities to challenge electoral maps as discriminatory. That ruling set off a scramble among some GOP-controlled states to impose new maps more favorable to Republicans. Republicans have also asked the court to reject some states' grace period for late-arriving mailed ballots. The case tests Mississippi's law allowing absentee ballots mailed by Election Day to be counted if received within five days.
Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance, are also hoping the court will scrap a federal limit on how much parties can spend in coordination with candidates. The cap was passed in 1974 as part of Congress' response to the Watergate scandal and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001.
Second Amendment Disputes
Four years after the court expanded gun rights by creating a new "historical tradition" test for firearm rules, the justices continue to wrestle over how to apply that test to various laws. In a case argued in January, the justices sounded likely to strike down a Hawaii law requiring gun owners to get permission before bringing a firearm into a store or other private property that's open to the public.
In another gun rights case, the justices may loosen a federal law aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous or irresponsible people. During the March oral arguments, the court debated whether a Texas man's regular use of marijuana is a good enough reason to criminally charge him for owning a gun. It is a felony under the Gun Control Act of 1968 for anyone who is "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" to have a gun.
Cultural and Religious Liberty Cases
The court has handed several setbacks to the LGBTQ+ community in the past year, including a March decision rejecting Colorado's ban on "conversion therapy" for young people. The court said the ban infringed on the free speech rights of a Christian counselor. The justices are also expected to back efforts in more than half the states to prevent transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams, though the court may leave unresolved whether states must impose such bans rather than simply being permitted to do so.
Agricultural Liability and Roundup Litigation
An ongoing battle over whether the popular Roundup weedkiller causes cancer could get curtailed or supercharged depending on whether the justices allow the manufacturer to be sued for failing to warn of cancer risks from the active ingredient glyphosate. Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, faces billions of dollars in potential liability. The company has said it may have to stop selling glyphosate to U.S. farmers if the lawsuits continue, a scenario major agricultural groups say would pose a "devastating risk to America's food supply." Trump is backing Bayer, a move that has alarmed some of his Make America Healthy Again supporters. The justices are deciding whether a federal law regulating pesticides prevents Roundup users from suing Bayer in state court. One successful litigant, who said he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate, was awarded $1.25 million by a Missouri jury.
Why This Matters:
The Supreme Court's upcoming decisions will establish critical precedents on the constitutional limits of executive power at a time when the balance between the branches of government faces unprecedented scrutiny. A ruling expanding presidential control over independent agencies would restore accountability to unelected bureaucrats who currently operate with minimal oversight, while decisions on birthright citizenship and immigration enforcement will determine whether the executive branch retains the tools necessary to manage border security effectively. The electoral integrity cases could safeguard against voting irregularities by clarifying deadlines and preventing late ballot counting that undermines public confidence in election results. On Second Amendment issues, the court has an opportunity to reaffirm that constitutional rights cannot be restricted by state and local governments without clear historical justification. The Roundup litigation carries enormous implications for American agriculture, as farmers depend on affordable, effective herbicides to maintain the food supply that feeds the nation and the world.