From immigration and guns to executive power, transgender athletes, and mail-in ballots, these are the Supreme Court cases to watch in May and June.
The Supreme Court of the United States is approaching the final phase of its 2025–2026 term. Oral arguments are behind us, and the merits decisions have all been filed. The remaining work consists of drafting and releasing the Court’s remaining opinions. Those opinions are expected to appear later this month or next, with the Court typically wrapping up by the end of June, just ahead of the summer break.
So what remains on the docket? Here are 11 major cases I’ll be tracking in the weeks ahead.
Immigration: Two significant immigration disputes remain unresolved. First, in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court must decide whether asylum seekers who present themselves at the U.S. border can be turned away outright or must be subjected to a formal inspection by immigration authorities and admitted into the asylum process for processing. Second, in Mullin v. Doe, the Court will determine whether the Trump administration improperly terminated the temporary protected status (TPS) of Syrian and Haitian nationals. The TPS program permits eligible foreigners to stay in the United States because returning to their home countries would be too dangerous.
Guns: There are two major gun-related cases awaiting resolution. First, Wolford v. Lopez asks whether Hawaii violated the Second Amendment by telling licensed concealed-carry permit holders that they must obtain explicit permission from the property owner before carrying a handgun on private property that is open to the public. Second, in United States v. Hemani, the justices consider whether a federal law barring gun possession by illegal-drug users runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
Transgender athletes: The Court heard back-to-back oral arguments in January in a pair of cases centered on government bans preventing transgender women and girls from competing in women’s and girls’ sports. In the first case, Little v. Hecox, the question is whether laws shielding women’s and girls’ sports by restricting participation to individuals based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the second case, West Virginia v. B.J.P., the Court asks whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently assigning girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on the biological sex determined at birth.
Presidential control over federal agencies: Two substantial cases fall under this broad umbrella, though they raise markedly different issues. In Trump v. Slaughter, the question is whether President Donald Trump may dismiss an FTC commissioner for purely political reasons, rather than for cause. This hinges on a 1935 Supreme Court precedent holding that the president cannot remove an FTC commissioner for political reasons, leaving the debate whether that precedent should be overruled, narrowed, or left intact and enforceable against Trump. The companion case, Trump v. Cook, asks whether Trump’s stated “for cause” dismissal of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board genuinely satisfied the statutory “for cause” standard or whether it was a pretext masking an improper political motive.
Birthright citizenship: By executive action, the president has claimed to withhold the constitutional birthright for children born to parents who are undocumented or who are legally present on temporary visas. Trump v. Barbara asks whether such an order is unconstitutional.
Mail-in ballots: The Constitution empowers states to set the times, places, and manner of elections for Senators and Representatives, with Congress authorized to regulate these rules. The case Watson v. Republican National Committee questions whether a Mississippi statute permitting the counting of mail-in ballots mailed by Election Day but received after Election Day conflicts with the federal rule that establishes a uniform national election date for federal offices.
Fourth Amendment searches and “geofence warrants”: The case Chatrie v. United States began after law enforcement asked Google to examine the location histories of all users to identify those near a bank robbery. The Court will decide what protections the Fourth Amendment truly affords in such circumstances.
All told, the Court is poised to issue a flood of decisions on a broad range of hot-button topics in the near future. Stay tuned.
