Tracking Major Supreme Court Cases and Rulings in 2026

The court ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority when he imposed sweeping tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner. Six companies and several states had challenged the policy. The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, but Mr. Trump is the first president to declare that a 1977 law gives him the power to set tariffs unilaterally during emergencies.

The outcome of the case could significantly affect the global economy and American businesses and consumers, and shape Mr. Trump’s foreign policy and economic initiatives for the remainder of his term. The Trump administration had said that a loss at the Supreme Court could force the government to unwind trade deals with other countries and potentially pay hefty refunds to importers. But the president’s top trade negotiator said last month that the administration would move quickly to replace any tariffs invalidated by the court with other levies.

The court held that a Republican congressman from Illinois could challenge the rules governing the counting of votes in his election. The congressman had sued the Illinois State Board of Elections to challenge rules that allow mail-in ballots in the state to be counted up to 14 days after an election provided they are postmarked by Election Day.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. concluded that political candidates have a direct interest in election rules — an interest that extends to the integrity of the election that gives them standing to sue.

This lawsuit could clear the way for more challenges to state election laws. Some observers also predicted that it could reduce the number of lawsuits filed after elections by allowing courts to deal with more challenges in advance.

Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board, sued President Trump after he tried to fire her in August, citing the law that established the central bank that allows presidents to dismiss members but only “for cause.” The administration cited an allegation that Ms. Cook had engaged in mortgage fraud. She has not been charged and vigorously denied any wrongdoing.

The case is a key test of how much discretion the president has to remake and control the Fed, which Mr. Trump has repeatedly tried to pressure to lower interest rates. Former top Fed and Treasury officials and Ms. Cook’s legal team warned the Supreme Court that permitting Mr. Trump to fire her while her litigation is underway would spur economic turmoil and undermine public confidence in the central bank.

President Trump has repeatedly fired independent government regulators despite federal laws meant to insulate them from political pressure by allowing presidents to remove the officials only with good cause. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, sued after Mr. Trump fired her without citing any reason. The court’s conservative majority has generally allowed the firings to take effect through temporary emergency orders.

A ruling in Mr. Trump’s favor would call into question the constitutionality of job protections for leaders of more than two dozen other bipartisan commissions and boards — and it would be a major expansion of presidential authority over independent agencies.

President Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term to end birthright citizenship, the commonly understood principle that children born in the United States are citizens. The order was immediately challenged in court and blocked by lower courts. The Trump administration asked the justices to step in and find the order constitutional.

Birthright citizenship has been a core tenet of American life since the Reconstruction amendments were passed after the Civil War. A ruling by the court to uphold Mr. Trump’s executive order could redefine what it means to be an American and overturn more than a century of precedent from the court.

A group of white Louisiana voters sued state officials in 2024, claiming that the state’s new congressional district map, in which state lawmakers added a second majority-Black district, was an illegal racial gerrymander. The Supreme Court heard the case once last year and then decided to hear it again, this time considering a broader question, weighing not just the validity of the Louisiana map but also what role, if any, race can play in carving up voters into districts.

The case challenges Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the remaining core piece of the legislation aimed at protecting voters from discrimination based on race. A decision that limits lawmakers from taking race into account in drawing voting maps could erase majority-minority districts — a move that would most likely benefit Republicans.

In 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, Mississippi lawmakers voted to accept mail-in ballots that are mailed and postmarked by Election Day but arrive up to five business days later. Republican leaders challenged the grace-period rule, asserting that federal law requires that ballots must be received by Election Day.

A ruling striking down Mississippi’s law has the potential to invalidate not only the state’s mail-in ballot rules, but also similar laws in more than a dozen other states. It could also potentially upend grace periods aimed at allowing military, diplomatic and other overseas voters to participate, along with rural voters and people with disabilities, and potentially disrupt all state laws that allow mail-in voting.

On the eve of the 2022 midterms, JD Vance, then a Senate candidate, sued to challenge campaign finance rules limiting how much money political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. He was joined by Republican groups.

A decision for the Republicans could give more power to official political parties and reduce the influence of super PACs. A broad ruling could also expand the influence of big donors compared with small-dollar contributions and could chip away at one of the Democrats’ financial advantages ahead of the midterms.

Two transgender athletes — Becky Pepper-Jackson, a high school student in West Virginia, and Lindsay Hecox, a college student in Idaho — challenged laws in their states that prohibit the participation of transgender athletes on girls’ and women’s sports teams. The Trump administration and lawyers for the states say transgender female athletes threaten to undermine progress under Title IX, which has led to increased opportunities for women in sports.

The outcome of the two cases has implications for the 25 other states with similar laws and for athletes who compete in school and collegiate sports around the country.

A Christian therapist challenged a Colorado law that bars mental health professionals from seeking to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of L.G.B.T.Q. minors. Lawyers for the therapist and the Trump administration say the law impermissibly interferes with free speech. Colorado countered that states have long regulated medical practices to ensure patients are protected from substandard care.

The court’s decision will have implications for more than 20 other states that have similar laws prohibiting so-called conversion therapy, which medical organizations say is ineffective and potentially dangerous for young people.

Hawaii passed a number of gun laws in response to a 2022 Supreme Court case that expanded gun rights and set out a new test for evaluating regulations. One state measure required gun owners to get advance permission to carry weapons on private property that is generally open to the public. Three Maui gun owners and a local firearms advocacy group challenged the restriction, arguing that it violates the Second Amendment.

A decision by the court could clarify the test for evaluating the constitutionality of gun regulations that the justices set out in 2022 in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Lower courts have struggled to figure out how to carry out the Supreme Court’s test, which required that they evaluate the constitutionality of gun laws based on the country’s “history and tradition.”

A Texas man challenged a federal law that bans gun possession by people who use illegal drugs.

The case provides the justices with another opportunity to clarify the test that the majority set out in the 2022 Bruen guns case that expanded the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Lower courts have struggled with how to apply the Supreme Court’s test that gun regulations must fit within the country’s “history and tradition.”

The justices are grappling with how states should assess whether capital defendants have intellectual disabilities that should require them to be spared the death penalty. Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama man, was sentenced to death after a conviction for a 1997 murder. He took multiple I.Q. tests and received varying results, but argues he has a mental disability and should not be executed.

Two decades ago, the court barred the execution of people with mental disabilities as a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The court’s decision is expected to provide further guidelines for states to evaluate how to determine who is intellectually disabled and whether defendants can present a full picture of their intellectual functioning beyond test scores.

Damon Landor, a Rastafarian, sued Louisiana prison officials after guards forcibly shaved him bald while he was serving a five-month sentence for drug possession. At the time, Mr. Landor, whose faith requires him to let his hair grow long, was carrying a copy of a legal opinion that said inmates must be allowed to keep their dreadlocks, under a federal law protecting prisoners’ religious freedom. The issue before the justices is whether Mr. Landor can seek monetary damages for his treatment.

The Supreme Court has in recent years repeatedly bolstered religious rights, but during oral argument in Mr. Landor’s case the justices seemed to divide along ideological lines, with members of the court’s conservative majority suggesting the statute at issue does not clearly permit such lawsuits.

State officials in New Jersey subpoenaed a crisis pregnancy center in 2023 as part of an investigation into whether it misled donors over its mission. The subpoena asked for donor information, and the clinic argued that it should be able to bring a First Amendment challenge to the state request in federal court.

Although the case involves an anti-abortion clinic, the legal issue is a jurisdictional one, whether the state subpoena can be challenged in federal court. Because of its narrow focus and implications for the First Amendment, the dispute includes unusual alliances. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief in support of the anti-abortion clinic’s argument, asserting that requests for donor information could chill free speech.

Louisiana state officials sued major oil companies in state court, seeking to hold them liable for coastal environmental damage linked to oil and gas production, some dating back to World War II. The oil companies argued that the cases should be heard in federal rather than state court.

Although the case focuses on a narrow question — whether the lawsuits should be heard in state or federal court — there are major implications for climate-related lawsuits. A decision by the justices to move the case to federal court — seen as friendlier to business interests — could make it more difficult for state and local governments to win lawsuits against companies for environmental damage.

The court is reviewing a Department of Homeland Security policy that allowed the government to turn noncitizens away at the border without hearing any claims they had that they qualified for asylum. The policy was in effect during the Obama administration and President Trump’s first term but reversed during the Biden administration.

Immigrant advocates say the so-called metering policy violates federal law, which requires officials to “inspect and refer for processing” asylum seekers who are “physically present” in the United States. The Trump administration says the policy is critical for managing the southern border.