The United States supreme court concluded its term on June 30, 2026, with a series of landmark decisions that are set to reshape the legal landscape. The Court’s rulings on issues ranging from birthright citizenship to gun rights and voting rights have sparked intense debates and will likely influence future policy and legislation.
An all-star panel of legal scholars, including Cary Franklin, Justin Levitt, Eugene Volokh, and Kimberly West-Faulcon, analyzed the implications of these rulings. Moderated by Rick Hasen, the panel discussed the broader impact of these decisions on the role of the courts, particularly in response to the Trump Administration’s assertions of executive power.
Key Decisions of the 2026 Term
The Supreme Court’s 2026 term was marked by several significant decisions that will have lasting effects on various aspects of American life. Here are some of the highlights:
Tariffs and Executive Power
In the case of Learning Resources v. Trump the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion, emphasized that the government’s interpretation of IEEPA would represent a transformative expansion of the president’s authority over tariff policy. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that President Trump could use IEEPA based on the statutory text and historical practice.
Voting Rights Act
The Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais narrowed the ability of states to use race as a determining factor in creating election districts. In a 6-3 decision, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that a Louisiana law went against the purpose of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, labeling the majority opinion as the latest chapter in the demolition of the Voting Rights Act.
Conversion Therapy
In Chiles v. Salazar the Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that Colorado’s law prohibiting mental health professionals from using conversion therapy on minors violated the First Amendment. Justice Neil Gorsuch held that the law regulated speech based on viewpoint. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the Court’s opinion misread precedents and was unprincipled.
Transgender Athletes
The Court’s decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J allowed state lawmakers to regulate gender identity in scholastic sports competitions. In a divided decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that Title IX allows schools to provide separate sports teams defined by biological sex. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, expressing concern that the decision would deny transgender students the opportunity to participate in sports.
The Second Amendment
In Wolford v. Lopez the Court struck down a Hawaii law that prohibited individuals with a concealed carry permit from bringing a handgun onto private property without the owner’s consent. Justice Samuel Alito held that the law violated the Second and 14th Amendments. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, believing that colonial and founding-era laws similarly prohibited carrying firearms onto private property without consent.
In United States v. Hemani the Court ruled unanimously that part of a federal law could not be used to prosecute individuals for possessing a gun and a controlled substance simultaneously. Justice Neil Gorsuch held that the government’s prosecution was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
Presidential Removal Powers
The Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter affirmed the president’s broad power to remove executive officials from office. In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts overturned a precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, expressing concern about the concentration of power in the executive branch.
In Trump v. Cook the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the District Court’s order preventing President Trump from firing Lisa Cook should remain in effect pending the conclusion of litigation. Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the government had not shown that it was likely to prevail on its legal arguments.
Birthright Citizenship
The Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara struck down President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. In a divided decision, Chief Justice John Roberts held that children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented, concluding that Trump’s executive order violated a federal statute.
Absentee Federal Election Ballots
In Watson v. Republican National Committee the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that federal election laws do not override a state law permitting the counting of ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the federal Election-Day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the acceptance of late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made.
Cellphone Data Access
The Court’s decision in Chatrie v. United States held that a police request to obtain cellphone user location data represents a search and generally requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. In a 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan said that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals’ reasonable expectations of privacy. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the police must obtain a warrant every time they access any cell-phone location information from a third party.
Immigration
In Mullin v. Doe the Court allowed the Department of Homeland Security to end Temporary protected status (TPS) for Syrian and Haitian immigrants. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a 6-3 Court that courts cannot review the decision to end TPS status for the two countries. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that DHS secretaries have repeatedly determined that conditions are too dangerous to permit safe return to Syria and Haiti.
In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado the Court ruled that refugees from Mexico need to be within the United States’ physical border to make an asylum claim. Justice Samuel Alito held for a 6-3 Court that an alien standing in Mexico does not ‘arrive in the United States’ by attempting to set foot in this country. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, expressing concern that the decision would block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil.
The Supreme Court’s 2026 term concluded with a series of landmark decisions that will have far-reaching implications on various aspects of American life. These rulings will likely influence future policy and legislation, shaping the legal landscape for years to come.
