It’s June, but there’s no summer recess yet for the Supreme Court justices — they are about to go into a marathon month, handing down a flurry of decisions in cases that will affect many Americans, covering issues including immigration, guns, elections and transgender rights.   

It’s been a busy term since the Supreme Court gaveled in last October. The Court has already issued several historic rulings, including the decisions to strike down President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs and to sharply narrow the Voting Rights Act, prompting redistricting lawsuits across the South. 

The justices still have over two dozen cases left on the docket, and as is customary, many of those remaining cases are the most important ones this term. As the justices race to clear the docket by early July — and begin their summers — here’s what you should be looking out for: 

Immigration

• Birthright citizenship

Perhaps the biggest question before the Court is the future of birthright citizenship, a question that has been settled law for more than 150 years. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment is simple: if you are born here, you’re a citizen. Trump wants to change that, seeking to block that principle with an executive order that ends automatic citizenship for individuals born on U.S. soil to noncitizen parents. When the Court heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara in April, a majority of the justices appeared inclined to uphold the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

While likely to become landmark legally, the case secured an extra place in history when Trump became the first sitting American president to attend oral arguments. The president sat toward the back of the courtroom while he listened to the solicitor general argue his case to end birthright citizenship.  

• Temporary protected status

The Trump administration has attempted to end temporary protected status, a temporary immigration status for foreign nationals who cannot safely return home, for multiple foreign countries. The issue arrived at the Supreme Court on an emergency basis through a pair of cases challenging the terminations of TPS for Syrians and Haitians. After presiding over other similar emergency requests, the justices granted full review and heard arguments in the cases in April. During arguments in late April, several of the Court’s conservative justices appeared inclined to allow the mass deportations of nearly 1.3 million TPS holders in the United States.

• Asylum claims

The Supreme Court is also weighing what it means to “arrive” in the U.S.: If a prospective migrant presents themselves on the Mexican side of the border, have they technically arrived in the U.S.? The issue at the center of this case is an Obama-era policy that was championed by Trump during his first term called “metering,” which allows border officials to block migrants from stepping foot on U.S. soil, where they would be entitled to claim asylum and receive protection from prosecution when border crossings reach capacity. Lower courts have declared that policy unconstitutional, but the high court appears likely to side with the federal government and allow the turn-back policy to resume. 

Federal agency firings

• Rebecca Slaughter

Trump may have brought the exclamation “You’re fired!” to fame before he took office, but the question now before the court is to whom he can actually say it. Last year, Trump fired former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter because she disagreed with his administration’s policies. She sued, saying her firing was unconstitutional because it violated a 1914 law that limits the president’s ability to remove an FTC commissioner without cause. The Supreme Court is now considering whether removal protections for independent agency heads violate separation of powers — and in doing so, whether a nearly 100-year-old Supreme Court precedent will hold. The Court has appeared likely to side with Trump and overturn its own precedent. 

• Lisa Cook

But the Court may not view all federal agencies the same way. The Court also took up the firing of Lisa Cook, a governor of the Federal Reserve. Trump fired Cook publicly based on allegations that she had committed mortgage fraud prior to assuming office. Cook has unequivocally denied these claims and argued Trump did not have cause to fire her. Lower courts sided with Cook, finding she was denied due process and blocking her firing. During arguments earlier this year, the Court appeared to view this case differently than other firing cases. A majority of justices seemed skeptical of the president’s power to fire a member of the Federal Reserve without formal notice or a hearing, expressing concerns about the overall independence of the Fed and the precedent this decision would set. If the president could fire Fed members he doesn’t like, he could pack the board with allies, according to economic scholars, and essentially control the entire U.S. economy. 

Transgender athletes

Nearly a year after upholding Tennessee’s ban on certain types of medical treatments for transgender minors, the Court, again, appears poised to restrict rights for transgender individuals. The Court is weighing the rights of transgender athletes for the first time. The cases concerned a pair of state bans —  in West Virginia and Idaho — on participation by transgender women and girls on women’s and girl’s sports teams. The Idaho challenge was brought by a college athlete who sought to join her university’s track and cross country teams. The West Virginia case was brought by a now 15-year-old transgender girl, who has publicly identified as transgender since third grade and has never undergone male puberty. 

Elections

While the Court already decided the biggest election case of the term when it struck down Louisiana’s congressional map and restricted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, there are still a few key cases that will impact this year’s midterm elections and beyond. The justices are considering whether Election Day should be considered quite literally one day; they are weighing the legality of state laws that allow mail-in ballots to be received and counted after Election Day as long as they are postmarked by the actual election. A majority of the Court appeared skeptical that Election Day could continue after elections. If they invalidate these laws, those grace periods will disappear in 18 states and territories, which could have major implications for the midterms. 

The Court is also considering whether federal limits on the amount of money the major political party committees can spend in coordination with candidates violates the First Amendment. The National Republican Senatorial Committee argued that limiting communication and strategizing infringes on free speech. If the Court overturns these restrictions, the national political parties could effectively control the significant, unlimited spending that is currently channeled through outside super PACs. 

Guns

The Supreme Court will decide two big Second Amendment cases this term. The justices are weighing the legality of a 1968 federal law that blocks unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. The case was brought by a marijuana user who possessed a gun. Gun rights advocates argue the law violates the Second Amendment, but the Department of Justice says it protects public safety.  Several justices appeared skeptical of the law’s broad nature, especially as it applies to marijuana users. This case is also notable because it concerns the same law federal prosecutors used to convict Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden. 

The Court is also reviewing a Hawaii law that requires individuals with concealed-carry permits to obtain explicit permission from private property owners before bringing guns onto private property open to the public. Lawyers for Hawaii say this is a commonsense gun law that protects the general public, but gun owners say it violates their constitutional rights. The lower courts split on the issue, but many of the Supreme Court justices appeared sympathetic to the gun owners’ right to carry. If the Court sides with the gun owners, those concealed-carry permit holders will be allowed to bring firearms into privately-owned public places, such as restaurants, stores and parking lots. 

Geofence warrants

The Court is also weighing a modern challenge to the Fourth Amendment: the constitutionality of geofence warrants. Law enforcement uses this special type of warrant when they cannot initially identify a suspect. They will compel tech companies to provide a list of all devices that were used inside a virtual perimeter — also known as a geofence — during a specific timeframe. Geofence warrants played a crucial role in the FBI’s investigation of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The lower courts have been split on the issue and the Supreme Court justices appeared split, too. Some justices were concerned about the government’s sweeping access to this data, but others saw the tool’s value for solving crimes and noted users can opt out of sharing location data. 

Traditionally, the Supreme Court clears the docket by early July so it can start its recess. As always with the Supreme Court, the legal stakes are high, the political fallout will be immediate and the constitutional consequences will last for generations.

The post What you need to know about the biggest Supreme Court cases still being decided appeared first on MS NOW.