Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court n Washington, DC, on January 14, 2022. . - The US Supreme Court on January 13 blocked President Joe Biden Covid vaccine-or-test mandate for large businesses. In a divided ruling, the nation's highest court allowed a Covid-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers at federal facilities to go ahead. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

Supreme Court Faces Major Decisions on Birthright Citizenship, Trump Firing Powers and Transgender Athlete Bans

The Supreme Court of the United States is entering the final stretch of its term with more than two dozen major cases still awaiting decisions, including disputes over birthright citizenship, transgender athletes in women’s sports and President Donald Trump’s authority to fire federal officials.

Traditionally, the high court releases its remaining opinions in late June or early July, setting up a potentially consequential series of rulings in cases that legal observers say have been heavily shaped by Trump’s presidency and second-term agenda.

“This is very much a term where Donald Trump is looming over the term,” said Amy Howe, co-founder of SCOTUSBlog, which closely tracks Supreme Court activity. “In a couple of the cases he is a named party.”

Birthright citizenship case tests 14th Amendment

Among the most closely watched cases is Trump v. Barbara, which challenges Trump’s executive order ending automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to noncitizen parents after Feb. 19, 2025.

Trump made history earlier this year by becoming the first sitting president to attend a Supreme Court oral argument in person during the case.

The dispute centers on interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Supporters of Trump’s order argue the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” limits citizenship to children whose parents owe full political allegiance to the United States. Opponents argue longstanding Supreme Court precedent has broadly interpreted the amendment to guarantee citizenship regardless of parental immigration status.

During oral arguments, several justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s position.

Cases could reshape presidential firing authority

The court is also weighing two cases that could significantly expand presidential control over independent federal agencies: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook.

The first involves Rebecca Slaughter, whom Trump fired from the Federal Trade Commission in March 2025 without citing cause, despite federal law limiting removals.

The second concerns Lisa Cook, whom Trump attempted to remove from the Federal Reserve board in August 2025 over allegations tied to mortgage fraud before her appointment.

Cook challenged her dismissal, and the Supreme Court allowed her to remain in office while litigation continues. By contrast, the court previously allowed Slaughter’s firing to stand during ongoing proceedings.

Amy Howe said the differing interim rulings may offer clues about how the justices ultimately view the independence of federal agencies — especially the Federal Reserve.

“It’s a question, really of the separation of powers,” Howe said. “Whether or not Congress can have these laws that prevent the president from firing people at will.”

A ruling in Trump’s favor could weaken or overturn nearly 90 years of precedent dating back to limits placed on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s authority over independent agencies.

Court weighs bans on transgender athletes

Another closely watched case before the court focuses on state restrictions barring transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.

The disputes involve laws passed in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender women and girls from competing in female athletic programs.

The lawsuits were brought by Lindsay Hecox and Becky Pepper Jackson, who argue the bans violate constitutional protections and federal anti-discrimination law.

State attorneys have defended the restrictions by arguing they preserve fairness in women’s sports under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.

Howe said the justices appeared receptive to the states’ arguments during oral hearings.

“I do think the trans athletes have a real uphill battle,” she said.

The Supreme Court is expected to release decisions in these cases — and others involving executive authority, civil rights and federal regulations — before the term concludes in early July.

About J. Williams

Check Also

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Immigrants Seeking Green Cards May Now Have to Leave U.S. Under Trump Policy

The Trump administration announced Friday a sweeping immigration policy that could force many immigrants already …

Leave a Reply