As the Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 term comes to a close, a handful of blockbuster cases remain undecided. Legal experts say the outcomes could fundamentally reinterpret core constitutional provisions, shift the balance of power between branches of government and reshape American elections and governance for decades.

From birthright citizenship to the future of independent agencies and voting-rights enforcement, the disputes test foundational assumptions about citizenship, executive authority, minority protections and campaign finance. Below is a guide to the most consequential rulings still expected.

Trump v. Barbara: The Future of Birthright Citizenship

No case pending before the high court carries more immediate constitutional gravity than Trump v. Barbara. Argued on April 1 – in an extraordinary oral argument session attended by President Trump himself – the question for the court is whether Executive Order 14160, signed on the first day of Trump’s second term, comports with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The order directs federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. if their mother was undocumented or present on a temporary visa, and their father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. Roughly 150,000 children a year could be affected.

The amendment clause reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 

Since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), this has been understood to confer citizenship on nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental immigration status.

The administration argues that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires stronger political allegiance, excluding children of undocumented or temporary-visa parents. Challengers, represented by the ACLU, contend this rewrites a 125-year constitutional settlement and that the executive cannot unilaterally alter a provision placed beyond ordinary political control. 

Lower courts have uniformly blocked the order pending litigation.

Oral arguments featured sharp exchanges. Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned of a “new world” of easy global travel enabling “birth tourism.” ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang, who benefited from birthright citizenship as the child of Taiwanese student-visa holders, defended the clause’s historical breadth. A decision is expected by late June or early July and could redefine who counts as a U.S. citizen.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Fate of Independent Agencies and the Administrative State

Argued in December 2025, Trump v. Slaughter may have the broadest long-term impact on federal governance. It directly confronts whether Congress can shield members of independent agencies from at-will presidential removal.

In 2025, Trump fired Federal Trade Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya without cause, despite the FTC Act’s 1914 provision limiting removal to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” This challenges the landmark 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld such protections for agencies exercising quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions.

A ruling for the government could jeopardize independence at the FTC, SEC, NLRB, EEOC, FERC, and potentially others including, in related litigation, even the Federal Reserve. 

Oral arguments suggested skepticism among conservative justices about Humphrey’s Executor’s continued viability amid the agencies’ expanded modern roles. The court has already stayed lower-court reinstatement orders, allowing the firings to stand in the interim. Many observers expect the court's 6-3 conservative majority to narrow or overrule the precedent, further consolidating executive control over the administrative state.

Louisiana v. Callais: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Peril

Louisiana v. Callais could have a profound impact on voting rights. The case began as a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits practices that dilute minority voting strength.

After a lower court found the state’s map diluted Black voting power (black residents comprise about one-third of Louisiana’s population), the legislature enacted a remedial map with two majority-black districts. Non-black voters sued, alleging an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 

The Supreme Court held oral argument for the first time in March 2025, then ordered reargument and directed briefing on whether creating majority-minority districts – even to remedy a VRA violation – violates the Equal Protection or Fifteenth Amendments. The second argument was held in October 2025.

With the pre-clearance regime already curtailed by Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Section 2 remains the primary federal tool against voting discrimination. A sweeping decision limiting or invalidating it could enable states to redraw maps for Congress, state legislatures and local offices with reduced judicial oversight – potentially reshaping representation ahead of and beyond the 2026 midterms.

NRSC v. FEC: Campaign Finance and the Role of Political Parties

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, argued in December 2025, could have a dramatic impact on money in politics. The case challenges Federal Election Campaign Act limits on coordinated expenditures between national party committees and their candidates.

Party committees may raise large sums from individuals (far exceeding direct contribution limits to candidates), but current rules cap how much they can spend in coordination on items such as shared advertising or strategy. Republican plaintiffs, including the NRSC, NRCC, and then-Senator JD Vance, argue that these limits infringe First Amendment rights to free association and speech.

Opponents warn that striking them would blur the line between party and candidate funding, enabling wealthy donors to effectively channel unlimited resources to specific campaigns via parties. Scholars view it as potentially the most significant campaign finance ruling since Citizens United v. FEC (2010). A decision could flood races with coordinated party spending during the 2026 midterms.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox: Women’s Sports 

In West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the court will opine on the permissibility of state laws banning transgender girls and women from participating in girls’ and women’s sports teams. The opinions are expected to examine whether such bans violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause.

A Term Poised to Reshape the Constitutional Landscape

Supreme Court opinions typically arrive in a late-June torrent. This year’s cluster – potentially landing amid the heat of midterm campaigning – could simultaneously redefine citizenship, executive power over regulators, minority voting influence, and election funding rules. 

By summer recess, the legal and political terrain of the United States may look markedly different.