SouthernWorldwide.com – As the Supreme Court approaches the conclusion of its term, a series of significant decisions are poised to shape President Donald Trump’s potential second-term agenda and redefine presidential authority for years to come.
The final weeks of June are traditionally a period of intense activity at the Supreme Court, often referred to as “flood season.” This is when the justices and their clerks work under tight deadlines to finalize and release opinions before the summer recess.
Out of nearly 60 cases heard this term, 23 still await resolution. These remaining cases include four related to Trump’s executive actions, two concerning election matters, and significant questions regarding gun rights and transgender rights.
A common theme across several of these pending cases is the extent of presidential power over federal policy and the executive branch. The outcomes could have a profound impact on Trump’s ability to advance his agenda, particularly concerning immigration and government oversight, while also clarifying the boundaries between the White House, Congress, and the judiciary.
TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY FACES CRUCIAL TESTS AS SUPREME COURT BEGINS PIVOTAL TERM
While the exact date for the court’s summer recess remains unconfirmed, the justices aim to conclude their work by the end of June. However, the compressed schedule and the court’s divided nature present uncertainties.
Here are 11 critical cases to watch as the term winds down.
Perhaps the most closely scrutinized case is a challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order 14160. This order aimed to restrict automatic citizenship for children born to parents who are in the U.S. unlawfully.
The decision in this case could set a precedent for presidential power, determining whether a president can alter a long-standing interpretation of citizenship law without congressional action.
Trump made history by attending oral arguments in March, a rare move for a sitting president. However, this personal involvement did not appear to sway the court.
During arguments, the Supreme Court showed skepticism towards the administration’s expansive efforts to limit who is considered an American. Justices questioned the assertion that a “privilege” of citizenship had been historically misused and wrongly granted to those with undocumented or temporary immigrant parents.
A ruling against the administration would uphold the established legal, political, and social consensus supporting birthright citizenship for all individuals born in the country, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status.
INSIDE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS
Executive power related to immigration is also central to Mullin v. Doe, Dahlia, and Trump v. Miot. These cases concern the administration’s attempt to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for certain migrants from Haiti and Syria residing in the U.S.
The TPS program currently provides protection to approximately 1.3 million individuals fleeing war and natural disasters in 17 countries, allowing them to live and work in the U.S. for a defined period.
CHECKS AND BALANCES: TRUMP, SUPPORTERS SEEK TO PUSH BACK AGAINST ‘ACTIVIST’ JUDGES
The administration contends that the Department of Homeland Security possesses broad authority to end TPS for migrants from specific countries, emphasizing the program’s temporary nature. Advocates for migrants argue that federal law mandates specific procedures and allows for judicial review of such decisions.
The court’s conservative majority has indicated a leaning towards supporting the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretionary power to revoke deportation protections for individuals from the 13 countries on the TPS list.
SUPREME COURT PREPARES FOR MAJOR TEST OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN TRUMP EFFORTS TO FIRE FEDERAL RESERVE GOVERNOR
In Trump v. Cook, the justices are examining whether Trump has the authority to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
Based on oral arguments in January, the court appears likely to deliver a significant legal setback to President Trump by supporting Governor Cook’s continued position, at least for the time being.
The core issue revolves around whether Trump possesses broad, unilateral executive authority to dismiss officials from the Federal Reserve, a federal agency with a distinct status.
During arguments, most justices expressed doubt regarding Trump’s actions.
“That’s your position that there’s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the Solicitor General. “Very low bar for ’cause’ that the president alone determines? I mean, that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”
However, another case, Trump v. Slaughter, could have even more far-reaching consequences. This case involves former Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter challenging her removal, directly testing a 1935 Supreme Court precedent in *Humphrey’s Executor v. United States*. That precedent limits a president’s power to remove members of independent regulatory commissions, requiring “cause” for dismissal.
A ruling in favor of the administration could enhance presidential control over agencies that regulate diverse sectors, including communications, consumer safety, labor policy, and financial markets. Conversely, a decision favoring Slaughter would significantly curtail presidential powers.
SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWN: TRUMP’S STRATEGY TO TEST LIMITS OF HIS POWER COULD SPELL DOOM FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STATE
The implications for the functioning of the federal government are substantial. Independent regulatory agencies and boards play a crucial role in managing nearly every facet of American life, from transportation safety and environmental protection to labor relations and financial markets.
This case concerns a federal law that places limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates running for Congress and the presidency.
In recent years, the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has struck down federal campaign spending limits enacted by Congress.
THE BIGGEST SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF 2024: FROM PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY TO OVERTURNING THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE
The six conservative justices seem prepared to do so again, potentially overturning a nearly 25-year-old decision that limits how major political parties allocate tens of millions of dollars, much of which is directed towards television advertising.
This dispute highlights a fundamental disagreement about whether campaign spending restrictions, intended to prevent corruption, unduly infringe upon the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The case centers on a Mississippi law that allows election officials to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, provided they were mailed by the deadline.
SCOTUS CONSERVATIVES SIGNAL READINESS TO CURB LATE-ARRIVING MAIL BALLOTS
Mississippi is among approximately 14 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories that offer a grace period for counting regular ballots, ranging from one day to several weeks, as long as they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
This is currently the practice in California, where the final results of the June 2 election may take several more weeks to be determined.
The justices are deciding whether federal Election Day statutes supersede various state laws and could clarify the precise meaning of “the election” concerning ballot casting and receipt.
The outcome may hinge on the votes of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The court is also reviewing two cases involving transgender athletes and school sports. In *Little v. Hecox* and *West Virginia v. B.P.J.*, the justices are considering whether state laws that prevent transgender girls and women from competing on female athletic teams violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or federal protections under Title IX.
Nearly 30 states have enacted laws restricting the participation of transgender females, who were designated male at birth, in both public school and college athletics. Officials argue these restrictions are necessary to ensure fair competition and student safety.
SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW STATE BANS ON TRANSGENDER ATHLETES’ PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOL SPORTS
However, legal representatives for a high school sophomore and a college senior argue that these prohibitions are discriminatory and that the focus should be on equality and dignity for all students, free from political influence and misinformation.
The Supreme Court is examining whether these laws constitute unconstitutional sex-based discrimination.
This challenge targets a Hawaii law that prohibits individuals, including those with concealed-carry permits, from bringing firearms onto private property accessible to the public, unless explicit permission has been granted by the owner.
This case could determine whether property rights take precedence over gun rights, and how these rights intersect.
GUN RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT
A group of gun owners in Maui are contesting these default permission rules. They argue that the law unfairly criminalizes carrying arms even when the owner of publicly accessible property remains silent. They refer to these laws as “vampire rules,” alluding to the legend of Dracula’s inability to enter a space without an invitation.
Conversely, Hawaii officials informed the court that these restrictions aim to balance gun and property rights, citing a long-standing tradition in the state of limiting dangerous weapons, dating back to its monarchy.
A separate, unresolved Second Amendment case concerns the federal law that prohibits individuals with a “habitual” use of marijuana from legally possessing a firearm.
The “guns and ganja” dispute centers on whether the widespread use of cannabis in recent decades—now legal in some form in 40 states—justifies criminalizing “mere possession” in conjunction with firearm ownership.
This same law was applied to Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, who was convicted under Section 922(g)(3), which prohibits any “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm.
