As the 2025-2026 term winds down, the Supreme Court has delivered major rulings on immigration, struck down a Hawaii gun law and blocked thousands of Roundup lawsuits—while leaving landmark questions on birthright citizenship, transgender athletes and other hi
For people living at the edges of U.S. policy—at the border, on private property in public spaces, or in courtrooms fighting over product warnings—the Supreme Court’s final weeks of the 2025-2026 term have felt less like procedure and more like consequence.
On June 25. justices handed President Donald Trump victories in two immigration cases and struck down another state gun restriction. while also blocking thousands of lawsuits tied to the weedkiller Roundup. Yet one of the most closely watched questions—whether a president can limit birthright citizenship—wasn’t decided. More rulings are scheduled for Monday, June 29.
Chief Justice John Roberts did not say whether June 29 would be the last decision day, leaving open the possibility of at least one more after that.
Trump wins on asylum and deportation, shaping the border reality
The court’s decisions gave Trump a clear path to tighten entry and expand deportation enforcement. The justices allowed the government to “systematically turn back asylum seekers” along the U.S. border with Mexico, describing it as a practice the Trump administration may want to bring back.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the 6-3 majority that the government may turn back asylum seekers. The dissent came from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who argued that “more people will die” from seeking alternative ways of entering the country or from having to remain in unsafe areas near the border.
In a second 6-3 majority opinion, Alito also backed the administration’s immediate end to Temporary Protected Status. The program permits Syrians and Haitians to live and work in the United States because of dangerous conditions in their home countries.
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, saying Trump’s comments about Haitians—such as accusing them of “eating people’s pets”—were “repellent and racially inflected.”
Even with the loss of this protection from deportation, the ruling did not necessarily end every option for affected immigrants. The text of the court’s outcome left open the possibility that Syrian and Haitian immigrants may be able to remain under a different justification. such as having obtained legal permanent residence.
But birthright citizenship remains unresolved, and the clock is still running
If immigration rulings showed what Trump can do now, the gap on birthright citizenship shows what is still at stake. A challenge to Trump’s proposed restrictions on birthright citizenship—stemming from an executive order signed on the first day of his second term—remains among the last pending cases.
Trump has argued that granting citizenship to the children of temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants will “destroy the country.” The court is weighing whether to restrict citizenship to the children of citizens or legal permanent residents. even though the Constitution’s 14th Amendment has been interpreted for more than 125 years to apply to nearly all children born in the country.
For advocates and opponents alike, the delay is meaningful. The justices have not yet ruled on whether a president’s order can narrow a right long treated as broadly settled.
On guns, the court moved against a Hawaii law—again centering public access
In the divide between gun rights and gun violence. the Supreme Court’s June 25 action came down firmly on the side of gun owners. The justices struck down a Hawaii law that required gun owners to get permission from private property owners before carrying firearms in public areas such as restaurants and parking lots.
Alito wrote for the 6-3 majority that the law imposed “severe restrictions” on gun owners who may be barred from entering many places people routinely visit, including gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, barber shops and laundromats.
Kris Brown, president of the advocacy group Brady: United Against Gun Violence, condemned the result, saying the “deeply dangerous majority opinion privileges guns over everything and all people in society.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, went further, accusing the court of putting “the gun lobby ahead of American lives.”
The court’s Roundup ruling blocked lawsuits across ideological lines
Not every June 25 decision tracked the familiar partisan split of the justices. A 7-2 ruling blocked thousands of lawsuits over the weedkiller Roundup.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority that John Durnell—who won $1.25 million from Roundup’s manufacturer, Monsanto—couldn’t bring a “failure-to-warn” lawsuit under Missouri law because the federal Environmental Protection Agency had not required a warning.
The majority included Sotomayor and Kagan, both Democratic appointees, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed. Jackson pointed to a “near unanimous view of the many state and federal courts” about whether federal law should have prevented a state lawsuit in a case like this. She was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Republican appointee.
That alignment didn’t match the earlier pattern of the day’s other rulings, underscoring how specific legal pathways—federal agency requirements, state law claims, and the timing of warnings—can override broader ideological expectations.
Alito’s pace stood out even as other cases waited for June 29
The June 25 decisions also reflected how the court is distributing its work. Alito entered the day—along with Roberts and Kavanaugh—having written only three decisions for the entire term.
But with his “hat trick” on June 25. Alito wrote 3 of 4 decisions. bringing him to the average pace compared with the court’s traditional distribution of workload. The justices typically spread responsibilities relatively evenly, with about six decisions each per year, while Gorsuch had already written seven. With Alito’s production matching the average after June 25. expectations are high for more decisions on June 29 from Roberts and Kavanaugh.
Even with four rulings on June 25, the court held back the biggest questions
As the term heads into its final days, several high-profile cases remain unresolved despite the four decisions issued on June 25.
Among the pending disputes are cases that could redefine presidential appointment powers and change election rules before the congressional midterms. Another major pair of cases asks whether West Virginia and Idaho can prohibit transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams.
More decisions are set for Monday, June 29, and the court has at least one more decision day after that, Chief Justice John Roberts did not indicate June 29 would be final.
For Americans watching the Supreme Court’s final output. the mix is stark: immigration policy and gun regulation have moved forward through decisions already in hand. while questions about birthright citizenship. transgender athletes. presidential appointment power and election rules are still waiting—close enough to feel urgent. but not yet decided.
Supreme Court immigration asylum deportation birthright citizenship Temporary Protected Status Hawaii gun law Brady Roundup Monsanto EPA transgender athletes presidential appointments election laws