who won – Over nine months of rulings through June, the Supreme Court expanded presidential power in some areas while blocking Trump on others that mattered most, including birthright citizenship and sweeping tariffs. It also delivered major wins for Republicans on elec
WASHINGTON — By the time the Supreme Court returned to the bench in October, the question hanging over the term was plain: how far would the justices go in backing President Donald Trump’s priorities?
They answered with a 6-3 conservative majority that, across more than nine months of decisions through June, reshaped the boundaries of presidential power, citizenship, immigration enforcement, election rules, and rights disputes tied to identity, religion, and guns.
The term came with a paradox Trump and his opponents can both point to. The court expanded presidential authority in ways conservatives have long sought. but it still ruled against Trump on some of the cases he cared about most—especially the effort to change birthright citizenship and the attempt to impose sweeping tariffs using an emergency statute. It also delivered major election-related victories for Republicans. while repeatedly limiting regulation in arenas where conservative groups have spent years pushing for narrower government authority.
The result is a mixed record that doesn’t fit neatly into a win-or-loss headline—at least not for everyone.
Presidential power: bigger. but not unlimited
Trump’s attempt to fire leaders of agencies that Congress said should be independent gave the court a chance to advance what conservatives call the “unitary executive theory.” Under that theory. the Constitution gives presidents complete control over executive functions. including the power to remove agency leaders for any reason.
When the court applied that reasoning, it allowed Trump to dismiss Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission. But the same majority blocked the president from firing a Federal Reserve governor.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Congress limited the president’s power to remove Federal Reserve governors “for good reason.”
In other areas, the court drew lines around Trump’s ability to make broad changes by executive action. It said Trump couldn’t change the longstanding understanding of birthright citizenship with the stroke of a pen. The justices also ruled Trump couldn’t use an emergency statue to impose sweeping tariffs.
Conservative court watchers said the “mixed bag” shows critics are wrong to claim conservative justices won’t stand up to Trump. Liberal legal expert Erwin Chemerinsky. Berkeley’s law school dean. summed up the outcomes—spanning many Trump wins in emergency appeals throughout the term—as “awful. but it could’ve been worse.”.
Immigration: decisions that mostly let Trump set the rules
For Trump’s immigration agenda, the term looked less like a crackdown on his ambitions and more like the court handing him room to act.
One ruling cleared the way for Trump to end a humanitarian program for Haitians and Syrians living temporarily in the country. Another allowed him to turn away refugees seeking asylum at the border. A third permitted more scrutiny of green-card holders returning from abroad.
Those opinions. along with hundreds of policy changes that have not been contested at the high court. affect millions of people. The court’s approach reflected a long-standing pattern: courts have traditionally given presidential administrations wide discretion over immigration policy. even as the justices drew the line at letting Trump redefine who is an American through an executive order.
Election law and money: Republicans mostly won
On election-related cases, Republicans left the term with a sweep that could reverberate all the way to this fall’s midterm elections.
The court’s biggest victory gutted a key section of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. In a case involving Louisiana’s congressional districts. the ruling makes it very difficult—if not nearly impossible—for racial minorities to argue that legislative maps unfairly dilute their voting power. GOP-led states were quick to take advantage of the decision by imposing new election maps that are expected to boost Republicans’ chances.
Republicans also won a challenge aimed at restricting campaign spending limits. The justices backed a rule designed to stop wealthy donors from bypassing limits on what they can give federal candidates by funneling money through political parties.
The term also brought a ruling that will make it easier for candidates to challenge election laws.
Trump’s effort to restrict voting by mail suffered a setback. The court rejected a GOP challenge to grace periods for mail-in ballots that are postmarked by election day and arrive after.
Precedents overturned: the court moved the goalposts
The term also carried a distinct message: several conservative majorities were willing to reverse older precedent, even when liberals warned it would affect fairness in sensitive areas.
Over the objections of the court’s three liberals, the justices overturned multiple prior decisions.
Ditching a 90-year-old decision, the court said restrictions Congress placed on a president’s ability to remove members of independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission encroached on presidential power.
The court also scrapped a quarter-century-old decision upholding limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates.
Liberal critiques centered on how the majority handled earlier rulings. The court’s liberals complained that a ruling restricting challenges to legislative districts as unfair to minority voters essentially overturned a previous decision, even if the opinion didn’t say so.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a similar charge in a separate ruling making it much more difficult for foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts alleging serious violations of international law. Sotomayor said the majority overturned a previous decision “without even acknowledging that it is doing so.”.
Transgender Americans: a losing streak deepened
For transgender Americans, the term extended what the court has delivered in recent years: losses, some of them arriving quickly after earlier protections.
After an unexpected 2020 victory that protected transgender employees from workplace discrimination, transgender Americans have faced a run of setbacks at the Supreme Court.
This term, the justices rejected Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for young people. The court said the ban infringed on the free speech rights of a Christian counselor.
The justices also backed efforts in more than half the states to prevent transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams.
Those setbacks followed last year’s ruling that states can ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors.
The next chapter is already scheduled. Next term, the court will take up the issue of parents’ rights to be involved in a child’s gender identity transition in a case about laws in Washington state protecting transgender runaway children.
Colorado’s role—again—ran like a thread through the term. The ruling protecting the Christian counselor in the conversion therapy dispute came from a case that originated in Colorado, a pioneering state for gay rights.
In previous years, the court sided with a website developer and a cake baker opposed to providing some services to gay customers because of their religious beliefs.
Next term, the justices will decide whether Catholic preschools in Colorado must admit LGBTQ+ families if they want to participate in the state’s tuition-free program.
Gun rights: further narrowing of regulation
Gun rights advocates didn’t leave the term empty-handed either. The Supreme Court continued limiting gun regulations in a way that builds on its landmark 2022 ruling that firearm regulations must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”.
This term. the justices struck down a Hawaii law that required gun owners to get permission before bringing a firearm into a store or other private property that’s open to the public. The court also limited the application of a decades-old federal law that bars firearms possession by certain drug users.
A larger case is already on deck for next term. Before adjourning for the summer, the justices announced they will decide whether bans on semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 are constitutional.
Bans on those rifles have been passed in response to mass shootings. Gun rights advocates argue millions of Americans own AR-15s for self-defense.
The record of the term, taken as a whole, leaves the country with more than winners and losers. It leaves institutions—agencies. election boards. immigration enforcement. courts themselves—operating under new boundaries drawn by a majority that was often willing to strengthen presidential authority. but just as willing to strike down the most sweeping versions of Trump’s ambitions.
For the administration. the court offered room in immigration and election-related outcomes. while trimming key efforts tied to birthright citizenship and tariffs. For civil rights advocates, the term carried hard reversals and major limits. For transgender Americans, it added to a pattern of setbacks. And for gun-rights proponents. the justices continued moving regulation toward a narrower historical test—setting the stage for the next showdown over semiautomatic rifle bans.
Supreme Court Trump term presidential authority birthright citizenship tariffs immigration rulings Voting Rights Act money in politics transgender rights conversion therapy trans athletes gun regulations AR-15