The Supreme Court is expected to issue 20 remaining opinions in the coming days, with potentially major rulings beginning as early as June 18—ranging from birthright citizenship to presidential power, voting rules, immigration enforcement, LGBTQ+ issues, gun r
For the people watching the Supreme Court’s docket, the calendar is starting to feel like a countdown. The justices are heading into the homestretch for their biggest cases of the term. and the court could drop multiple landmark opinions as early as June 18—often without advance notice—just days before the summer recess.
In the coming days. the court is expected to hand down 20 remaining decisions as it aims to wrap up by the end of the month. The stakes are broad and immediate: from who qualifies for automatic U.S. citizenship. to how far presidents can reach into immigration policy and independent agencies. to rules that shape elections and public life.
Birthright citizenship is the case many are watching most closely. After the Supreme Court ruled against President Donald Trump’s tariffs in January. Trump predicted the justices would also strike down his effort to sharply limit who qualifies for automatic U.S. citizenship. In the first day of his second term. Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of babies born in the United States if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The order is widely viewed as a legal long shot. The justices could block it by ruling that it violates the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They could also narrow their rejection by finding that Trump’s executive order violates a 1952 immigration law.
The question isn’t only whether the order would be struck down, but how. Even in the way the court could rule, the difference matters—because one path would focus on constitutional text, while the other could hinge on whether the executive order conflicts with the 1952 statute.
A separate set of cases centers on presidential reach over federal power. The justices also seemed unlikely to let the president fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. But in another case, the court appeared ready to side with Trump on presidential control over other independent agencies. A historic decision there could reshape how more than a dozen agencies operate. shifting power from Congress to the White House.
Immigration fights remain tightly tied to questions of how much discretion courts must allow. In yet another dispute over presidential power. Trump argued that the courts have no say in his decision to end deportation protections for Syrians and Haitians. Curtailing a humanitarian program for hundreds of thousands of immigrants is part of the broader push to restrict immigration.
Immigrant rights advocates are challenging the terminations. saying the administration reached predetermined conclusions about whether Syria and Haiti are safe for the migrants to return to. The administration counters that the law creating the Temporary Status Protection Program bars any judicial review of which migrants may live and work in the United States.
The administration is also seeking the option of bringing back a migrant management practice to limit the number of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. Under that practice, federal officials stand at the border and prevent undocumented migrants from physically setting foot on U.S. soil. At that point, they would have the right to seek asylum under U.S. law.
The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling requiring the government to process claims from people who reach a port of entry.
The court’s election rulings have already shaken this year’s campaign landscape. and additional cases could add another layer of pressure for both parties. After an ideologically divided court on April 29 severely limited the scope of the landmark Voting Rights Act—making it harder for racial minorities to challenge electoral maps as discriminatory—some GOP-controlled states have scrambled to impose new maps more favorable to Republicans.
Republicans are also asking the court to reject states’ grace periods for late-arriving mailed ballots. The case tests Mississippi’s law allowing absentee ballots mailed by Election Day to be counted if received within five days.
Another major election fight involves campaign spending. Republicans. including Vice President JD Vance. are hoping the court will scrap a federal limit on how much parties can spend in coordination with candidates. The cap—aimed at preventing wealthy donors from bypassing limits on what they can give federal candidates by funneling money through political parties—was passed in 1974 as part of Congress’ response to the Watergate scandal. The Supreme Court upheld it in 2001.
Outside election law, the court is expected to continue shaping culture-war disputes. The justices have already delivered setbacks to the LGBTQ+ community in the past year. In March. the court rejected Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for young people. saying the ban infringed on the free speech rights of a Christian counselor.
This term, the court is also expected to back efforts in more than half the states to prevent transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams. But the justices may leave unresolved whether states must impose such bans—or whether they can choose only to allow them.
Gun rights remain another major front. Four years after the court expanded gun rights by creating a new “historical tradition” test for firearm rules. the justices are still working through how to apply that test. In a case argued in January. the court sounded likely to strike down a Hawaii law requiring gun owners to get permission before bringing a firearm into a store or other private property open to the public.
Hawaii and a few other Democrat-led states changed the default rules by prohibiting guns unless an owner gives express permission. instead of allowing guns unless they’re expressly prohibited. Property owners have always had the ability to restrict weapons. but the states’ shift turned that baseline into a permission requirement.
In another gun rights case. the justices may loosen a federal law aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous or irresponsible people. During March oral arguments. the court debated whether a Texas man’s regular use of marijuana is enough to criminally charge him for owning a gun. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968. it is a felony for anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to have a gun.
The term also includes a potentially consequential fight over cancer claims linked to Roundup weedkiller. An ongoing battle over whether Roundup causes cancer could be curtailed or supercharged depending on whether the justices allow the manufacturer to be sued for failing to warn of cancer risks from the active ingredient glyphosate.
Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, faces billions of dollars in potential liability. The company has said it may have to stop selling glyphosate to U.S. farmers if lawsuits continue, a scenario major agricultural groups say would pose a “devastating risk to America’s food supply.”
Trump is backing Bayer, a move that has alarmed some of his Make America Healthy Again supporters.
At the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision is whether a federal law regulating pesticides prevents Roundup users from suing Bayer in state court. One successful litigant—who said he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate—was awarded $1.25 million by a Missouri jury.
The sequence of disputes is striking in how often it turns on the same core question: who gets to decide—courts. Congress. presidents. agencies. or the states. Whether the justices are weighing birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. presidential power over immigration and independent agencies. or state rules shaping elections. sports. and firearms. each decision could shift authority in ways that ripple far beyond the courtroom.
With 20 opinions expected in the coming days and potential blockbuster rulings beginning as early as June 18. the court is preparing to deliver a concentrated final push. For the people who have spent months waiting—workers. voters. patients. and parents—the timing matters as much as the outcomes. The justices may be silent until the last moment, but the policy consequences are not.
Supreme Court birthright citizenship Trump executive order Lisa Cook Federal Reserve Temporary Status Protection Program asylum seekers Voting Rights Act mail-in ballots campaign spending limit transgender sports conversion therapy gun rights historical tradition test Roundup glyphosate Bayer Monsanto