Jan 1, 2026 - Politics & Policy

The Supreme Court cases that could shape 2026

Julianna Bragg

Photo illustration of President Trump with a giant gavel beside him and the Constitution in the background — Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Ira L. Black/Corbis via Getty Images

The Supreme Court has many pivotal cases lined up for the coming year, many revolving around President Trump's policies.

The big picture: Trump has relied heavily on the court's emergency docket during his second term, using it to block lower court rulings while cases play out.

SCOTUS granted Trump several wins in 2025, including letting him fire federal workers, proceed with his mass deportation plan, and ban transgender people from military service.

Here are the Supreme Court cases to watch in 2026.

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court will likely decide Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship in early 2026 in Trump v. Barbara.

Driving the news: Upholding Trump's order, which seeks to bar children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S. from citizenship, would overturn a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and upheld by the court for more than a century.

Trump's order was quickly met with legal challenges, and several courts temporarily halted its implementation.

Flashback: The administration argues birthright citizenship applies only to formerly enslaved people who were granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment after the Civil War.

Michael LeRoy, an immigration law expert at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, previously told Axios' Avery Lotz that it's impossible to predict how SCOTUS will rule — but a decision in Trump's favor could have sweeping implications for other constitutional protections.

Trump's tariff case

SCOTUS will decide the legality of Trump declaring a national emergency to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign goods without congressional approval, in what he has called the "most important case ever" in Learning Resources v. Trump.

State of play: A ruling against Trump could force the government to refund more than $100 billion in tariffs already collected and curtail his ability to use declared emergencies to enact his economic agenda.

Trump has repeatedly claimed tariff revenue will help pay down the national debt, bankroll aid to farmers and cover the cost of his new "warrior dividend" — a one-time $1,776 bonus for roughly 1.45 million service members — even though the bonus is actually being paid out of previously approved Pentagon housing funds, not tariffs.

Yes, but: The president has argued his far-reaching tariffs create jobs and boost U.S. manufacturing, claims many economists dispute. Economists also worry the government might ultimately have to return the tariff revenue.

In recent weeks, companies including Costco, Revlon, Bumble Bee Foods and the maker of Ray-Ban have sued, seeking refunds if the justices ultimately strike down the tariffs.

What Trump's saying: "Evil, American hating Forces are fighting us at the United States Supreme Court," Trump said in Truth Social post in November.

"Pray to God that our Nine Justices will show great wisdom, and do the right thing for America!"

Banning conversion therapy

SCOTUS is expected to rule on a case challenging bans on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy for minors — a discredited practice aimed at changing young people's sexual orientations or gender identities in Chiles v. Salazar.

Zoom out: The justices will decide whether therapists' conversations with patients are protected by the First Amendment or considered medical treatment that states can regulate.

LGBTQ+ advocates, major medical and mental health organizations have condemned conversion therapy as harmful, discriminatory and ineffective.

Worth noting: Twenty-three states had full bans on conversion therapy as of late 2025, with five states imposing a partial ban. Five states prohibit such bans, while 18 have no restrictions.

Trans athletes in women's sports

SCOTUS will hear arguments in two major cases — one from Idaho and another from West Virginia — where states banned transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.

Zoom in: The court could decide Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs, does not protect transgender athletes competing in sports consistent with their gender identity.

A decision against the athletes would mark a major setback for the LGBTQ+ community, adding to Trump's other 2025 actions to limit protections for transgender individuals.

The Voting Rights Act

The high court appears poised to severely curtail Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a decision that would reshape how legislative and congressional maps are drawn nationwide and potentially reduce minority representation by significant margins in Louisiana v. Callais.

Why it matters: The case challenges a core provision of the Voting Rights Act that has created maps that allow minority voters to elect their candidates of choice. Overturning it could allow Republicans to lock in additional congressional and legislative seats across the country.

The ruling could make it significantly harder for minority voters to secure or maintain electoral representation.

Campaign finance

SCOTUS will rule on a Republican-backed challenge that aims to overturn decades-old limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates in NRSC v. FEC.

What we're watching: Election watchdogs warn that removing these limits would destroy the few remaining firewalls between big money and candidates.

The case would further remove campaign finance restrictions on how much an individual or group can donate directly to a candidate, which provides a safeguard against bribery or suspected corruption.

How it works: Under current law, political action committees can raise unlimited funds, but they can't coordinate with candidates.

Parties, on the other hand, are limited in how much they can raise, but they are able to cooperate with candidates.
Republicans argue those limits violate the First Amendment by preventing parties from supporting their nominees.

Firing independent agency heads

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump has the unilateral authority to fire leaders of independent agencies in Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter.

The bottom line: A ruling for Trump would overturn a 90-year-old precedent that shielded independent agency commissioners from political firings.

Catch up quick: The cases stem from Trump's attempted firing of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and his firings of FTC officials Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, who later resigned.

Trump said their service at the agency was "inconsistent with my Administration's policies," in a letter announcing the terminations.

Hawaii law prohibiting guns

SCOTUS will rule on the legality of a Hawaii law that prohibits individuals from carrying guns onto private property unless the owner gives explicit consent in Wolford v. Lopez.

Hawaii's list of "sensitive places," where firearms are banned, includes more than 15 categories — places such as bars, beaches and banks — which plaintiffs argue violates their 2nd Amendment rights.

Context: Hawaii enacted the new restrictions in 2023 after the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, which held that the 2nd Amendment included the right to carry in public.

California has faced similar legal challenges after passing laws aimed at tightening firearm restrictions on private property.
The justices have agreed to consider only Hawaii's burden flipping provision, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, finding that the state's law "falls well within the historical tradition," and not the broader sensitive places restrictions as a whole.

Add Axios on Google