Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The Supreme Court begins a new term Monday that could reshape the power of the presidency, determine the role of race in redistricting and elections, and redefine federal protections for LGBT Americans — setting up one of the most consequential judicial years in decades.
With a 6-3 conservative majority firmly in place, the justices are preparing to weigh in on some of the most politically charged issues in the country, including President Donald Trump’s tariffs on global trade, state bans on transgender athletes in sports, and challenges to how federal elections are regulated. Legal experts say the term could also bring fresh tests of the court’s willingness to check Trump’s expansive view of presidential authority.
“This term is poised to be a defining one,” said Aziz Huq, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. “The justices have put themselves squarely in the middle of the most divisive questions of our time — not just social policy, but the structure of American democracy itself.”
Trump’s authority under scrutiny
Among the first major cases to be heard this fall are two challenges that directly question Trump’s use of executive power. One tests the legality of the president’s “Liberation Day” tariffs — sweeping duties on imports from China, Mexico, and Canada that affect trillions of dollars in trade. Another will decide whether Trump can dismiss officials at independent federal agencies without congressional approval.
In the tariff case, the administration argues that a 1977 law allows the president to “regulate” imports in response to national emergencies — including trade imbalances and illegal drug trafficking. Lower courts disagreed, ruling that Trump overstepped the authority Congress granted. The Supreme Court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it reviews the case this term.
Alan B. Morrison, associate dean at George Washington University Law School, said the outcome could mark a pivotal shift in the balance of power between the White House and Congress.
“If the court sides with Trump here, it will effectively say that presidents can interpret statutory limits however they wish in the name of national security,” Morrison said. “That could open the door to unchecked executive power.”
A separate case will test whether the president can remove members of independent commissions, such as the Federal Trade Commission, without cause. The challenge stems from Trump’s decision to dismiss Democratic appointee Rebecca Slaughter, sparking a debate over a 1935 precedent that restricts presidents from firing certain agency heads.
Legal scholars say a ruling in Trump’s favor could give future presidents unprecedented control over regulatory bodies that were designed to be politically insulated.
Race and representation
The court will also revisit how states draw congressional maps — and the future of the Voting Rights Act — in a major redistricting dispute out of Louisiana. At issue is whether the state’s creation of a second Black-majority congressional district violates constitutional limits on race-based line drawing.
The justices’ decision could further erode the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, which requires states to ensure minority voters have a fair chance to elect candidates of their choice. Civil rights groups warn that a broad ruling could upend decades of voting rights precedent and allow legislatures to weaken minority representation nationwide.
“Roughly 80 percent of Black members of Congress represent districts protected by Section 2,” said Spencer Overton, a law professor at George Washington University. “If that protection collapses, we’re talking about a wholesale reconfiguration of American democracy.”
The Louisiana case follows a series of decisions that have already narrowed federal oversight of state election maps, including a 2019 ruling that barred federal courts from policing partisan gerrymandering. Together, those rulings have steadily shifted power back to the states in shaping congressional and legislative districts.
Elections and party control
Another pending case could alter the landscape of campaign finance by examining limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates. The Trump administration has declined to defend the current restrictions, leaving congressional Democrats to intervene on behalf of the law.
Jennifer Nou, a University of Chicago law professor, said striking down the coordination limits could “consolidate control of elections in the hands of party leaders — and, by extension, the president.”
“That kind of ruling would blur the line between campaign politics and government policymaking,” Nou said. “It would give the president enormous influence over the flow of campaign money.”
The justices are also expected to weigh whether mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day can be counted — a dispute that has divided state courts since the 2020 election. A case from Illinois could finally settle that question before the 2026 midterms.
LGBT and cultural issues
Two major cases involving LGBT rights will test how far the court’s conservative majority is willing to go in narrowing civil rights protections. One challenges state laws banning transgender girls from competing in girls’ sports. Another contests state prohibitions on so-called “conversion therapy,” which some therapists claim infringes on free speech.
While the specific disputes arise from Idaho, West Virginia, and Colorado, the rulings are expected to set national precedents. The Trump administration has already filed briefs in support of the bans and has sued several states over their defiance of new federal restrictions on transgender participation in athletics.
Republican lawmakers in Congress have mirrored that effort, advancing legislation to block federal funding for schools that allow transgender girls to participate in girls’ sports. Civil rights groups say the legal battles are part of a broader effort to roll back protections established under the Biden administration.
The justices are also facing a petition from conservative activists to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The court has not yet said whether it will take the case, but several members of the conservative bloc have signaled a willingness to reconsider prior rulings.
A defining test for the Roberts Court
Chief Justice John Roberts, who has at times sought to protect the court’s institutional legitimacy, faces one of his most delicate terms yet. Analysts say his challenge will be steering a court that is both reshaping American law and fending off accusations of political bias.
“The court’s decisions this term will determine not only how the Constitution is read, but whether Americans still see the judiciary as an independent check on power,” Huq said. “That’s the real test.”
