SCOTUS RECAP: Court Closes 2025-2026 Term with Landmark Decisions

With the dust having now settled on the Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 term, now is an opportune time to take stock of the major decisions handed down that will shape law and policy for years to come.

Trump v. Barbara – Birthright Citizenship Survives for Now

The headline case of the term was Trump v. Barbara, which addressed birthright citizenship for children born on American soil to parents who are not U.S. citizens. The Court rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to end automatic birthright citizenship through executive order, meaning that – under the Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution – children born in the United States to illegal aliens are legally considered American citizens.

The majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment continues to guarantee citizenship to virtually everyone born on U.S. soil. Conservatives argued that the decision was a missed opportunity to revisit longstanding interpretations of the Citizenship Clause, particularly in light of its abuse by illegal aliens in recent years. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, with Justice Kavanaugh concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas notably authoring a blistering 91-page dissent – more than three and a half times the length of the majority opinion.

Reacting to the ruling, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson remarked, “You could say [the ruling] is a textualist, originalist view. However, I do think that this has been grossly abused in recent years. And that we are very sympathetic to that because it is a serious problem. It’s become a trend – birthing tourism.”

Johnson argued that migrants have exploited the Citizenship Clause by giving birth in the United States to avoid deportation themselves and to gain access to welfare benefits through their citizen children. But the Court ultimately held that in order to address that problem, Congress and the states must pass a constitutional amendment.

However, developments in recent days indicate that this may not be the end of the matter. President Trump has announced his intention to ask the Court to rehear the case – something which would be highly unusual but not unprecedented.

Trump v. Miot – TPS Tossed Out

Also on immigration, President Trump secured a major victory in the consolidated cases Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, which involved his administration’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from Syria and Haiti.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court overturned lower-court orders that had temporarily blocked those terminations, holding that federal law bars courts from reviewing nonconstitutional challenges to the Department of Homeland Security’s TPS decisions – including objections to the procedures used to reach them.

The Court also found that the Haitian challengers were unlikely to prove that the administration’s decision was motivated by racial discrimination. The ruling gives the president more control over who receives TPS and makes it more difficult for federal judges to block the administration from ending those protections.

Trump v. Slaughter – Major Victory for Government Accountability

Another high-profile decision came in Trump v. Slaughter, one of the Court’s most significant structural constitutional decisions in years concerning presidential removal power. The case centered on President Trump’s removal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and whether he possessed the constitutional authority to do so.

The Court expanded presidential authority to remove leaders of independent federal agencies, overruling a 91-year-old precedent and finding that longstanding protections for FTC commissioners were unconstitutional. The decision gives Trump, as well as future presidents, greater discretion over the executive branch’s hiring and firing, a result many conservatives celebrated as better ensuring that public officials are accountable to elected leaders.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the ruling “reshapes our government.” She warned that dozens of independent commissions – including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Merit Systems Protection Board – could now effectively become executive agencies under direct presidential control.

Learning Resources v. Trump – Big Blow to Tariffs

In one of the term’s most significant rulings against the Trump administration, the Court held in Learning Resources v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose sweeping tariffs. Instead, the Court held that Congress retains that authority unless Congress explicitly delegates it. The decision was a significant setback for one of Trump’s signature trade policies.

Louisiana v. Callais – Bye-Bye Racial Gerrymandering

Another closely watched decision came in Louisiana v. Callais. In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld the invalidation of Louisiana’s congressional map, ruling that its second majority-Black district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court said Louisiana relied too heavily on race when drawing the district, even though the state argued it was trying to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

In effect, the ruling narrowed the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, holding that Louisiana relied too heavily on race to create an additional majority-Black district without a legally sufficient reason. The ruling gives states greater latitude when drawing legislative maps and reinforces race-neutral approaches to redistricting. Critics of the decision argued that it weakens minority voting power by preventing race-based redistricting practices.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. – Big Win for Girls’ Sports

In another landmark decision, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the Court upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho restricting participation in women’s sports in public schools to biological females. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court concluded that such state laws do not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or Title IX, allowing other states to enact similar policies prohibiting males who claim transgender status from competing on women’s sports teams.

The decision marked the Supreme Court’s first major ruling directly addressing transgender participation in women’s athletics. It is expected to shape school and collegiate athletic policies nationwide while giving states broad authority to define eligibility for sex-separated sports based on biological sex.

Several former U.S. Olympians praised the decision. Three-time Olympic softball gold medalist Leah O’Brien-Amico said, “[This] ruling is a victory for every girl who has ever dreamed of competing at the highest level.”

She added, “As a three-time Olympic gold medalist, I am deeply grateful that I had the opportunity to compete on a level playing field with other biological females. The integrity and safety of women’s sports must be protected in every way.”

The Court’s 2025-2026 term reinforced several trends that have defined the Roberts Court in recent years. The conservative majority continued to strengthen state authority in several areas, expand presidential control over the executive branch, and weigh in on some of the nation’s most contentious cultural debates.

Still, the Court failed to deliver everything that conservatives had hoped. The birthright citizenship decision was particularly disappointing, and was a major blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to protect American sovereignty and discourage illegal immigration. According to the Court, a woman from anywhere in the world – including, say, communist China – could cross the border illegally, have a baby, and then return to her home country. Eighteen years later, that baby would be eligible to vote in U.S. elections and even run for public office.

Ultimately, however, what the Court’s term made clear is that the most contentious issues will have to be settled by Congress and not nine unelected judges. As frustrating as this may be at times for both sides of the political aisle, conservatives can at least be grateful for a Court where the majority is more or less committed to preserving the judiciary’s role as a branch that interprets the law rather than creates it.

Lillian Ferrell is a senior at Hillsdale College studying English and music. She has experience in journalism and podcasting as the host of the Grace Over Grind podcast. Her written work focuses on American politics, culture, and public policy.