The Supreme Court is slated to hear several potentially landmark cases in its 2025-2026 term, which began Monday, ranging from tariffs to transgender sports laws.

While President Donald Trump has dominated the high court’s emergency docket since returning to office in January, many of the key cases on the Supreme Court’s merits docket for this term involve the president’s actions, including his tariffs and his firing of independent agency heads.

Trump ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs

The pair of consolidated cases, the most eagerly anticipated heading into the term, deal with Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, the high court will evaluate the president’s claim that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes him to levy tariffs.

Trump suffered losses at lower district courts in both cases, and in the V.O.S. Selections case, he lost at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court’s decision in the consolidated cases will determine the fate of the “Administration’s most significant economic and foreign-policy
initiative,” the Justice Department described in its petition to the justices.

The high court will hear arguments in the tariffs case on Nov. 5.

Trump v. Slaughter

The president’s firing of various independent agency heads led to the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case involving Trump’s bid to fire Federal Trade Commission administrator Rebecca Slaughter, which could overturn the longstanding precedent established by the high court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

The high court took up the case before it worked its way through the lower courts, after it had already allowed similar firings to move forward in the interim via the emergency docket. With the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on the emergency docket, the justices appear poised to overrule Humphrey’s Executor and expand the president’s power to fire agency heads.

The Supreme Court has said it will hear arguments in the case in December.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

The high court will hear arguments in a case this term that could have significant implications for campaign finance ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

With NRSC v. FEC, the commission’s coordinated spending limits between political parties and candidates are at the center of the dispute. The Republican Party’s Senate campaign wing argues the spending limits violate its First Amendment rights.

If the high court follows the pattern of its recent decisions and strikes down another campaign finance spending limit, it could flood the 2026 midterm elections with more coordinated spending.

The Supreme Court has yet to schedule arguments for the case.

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

Another case the Supreme Court will hear that could have significant effects on upcoming elections is Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections. The justices will hear arguments about whether a federal candidate has standing to sue over a state election law.

Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL) filed the lawsuit against Illinois officials in 2022, alleging that a state law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be collected 14 days after Election Day is unconstitutional. Lower federal courts ruled that Bost lacked standing to file the lawsuit, while not reaching a decision on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court will now hear arguments on the standing question, a ruling that could have sweeping implications for election law challenges in the future.

The high court has scheduled oral arguments for Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections for Wednesday.

Louisiana redistricting cases

The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving Louisiana’s creation of a second black-majority district during its last term, but punted on a decision and ordered rearguments for this term.

With the rearguments, the Supreme Court asked parties to answer whether Louisiana’s “intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

Louisiana and the Justice Department have argued the creation of the districts is unconstitutional and have called on the high court to strike down its 1986 ruling in Thornburg v. Gingles, which set the current parameters for race-based legal challenges of congressional maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. If the high court opts to strike down Gingles, it could have sweeping implications for the congressional maps of various southern states, such as Louisiana and Alabama, which have VRA-compliant minority-majority districts under the Gingles framework.

Rearguments in the case are scheduled for Oct. 15.

Chiles v. Salazar

The question of whether Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban limits the free speech rights of counselors by restricting how they may discuss issues of gender identity and sexual orientation with clients is at the center of the dispute in Chiles v. Salazar.

Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado, argues the state has restricted her First Amendment rights, while Colorado claims it is lawfully regulating standards of care in the healthcare industry.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Tuesday, the second day of the new term, and appeared skeptical of Colorado’s arguments that its law only regulates healthcare.

Transgender sports cases

Another pair of closely watched cases the high court will hear oral arguments for this term deals with the legality of state laws limiting women’s sports to biological females.

With Little v. Hecox, the question of the case centers on whether Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act and similar laws restricting women’s sports to biological women violate the 14th Amendment.

With B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education, West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act is at the center of arguments over two questions about the law’s legality. The first question is whether Title IX “prevents a state from consistently designating girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth,” while the second question is about whether the equal protection clause “prevents a state from offering separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.”

Both cases are expected to have sweeping implications for dozens of states with similar laws restricting women’s sports to biological women, and come a term after the high court’s decision in Skrmetti v. United States, which upheld state bans on transgender medical procedures for minors. Arguments have yet to be scheduled for either case.

SUPREME COURT POISED TO SHAKE UP MIDTERM ELECTIONS

While the Supreme Court has already taken up more than three dozen cases for its term, it is expected to add dozens more to its docket in the coming weeks and months. Issues the high court could hear this term include Trump’s birthright citizenship order.

The Supreme Court term is scheduled to continue with arguments through April 2026, with final opinions expected by the end of June 2026.

, 2025-10-09 09:00:00, , Washington Examiner, %%https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon.png?w=32, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Jack Birle