Washington — As the Supreme Court’s term draws to a close, the justices are preparing to issue rulings on several high-profile cases before their summer recess. This term has already seen the court invalidate significant policies, including President Trump’s extensive tariffs and a weakening of the Voting Rights Act. However, before July arrives, the court is set to deliver opinions on cases involving state laws regarding transgender athletes, Mr. Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, and his attempts to dismiss members of independent agencies, among others.
One case under consideration relates to an executive order signed by Mr. Trump on his first day back in office, which aimed to eliminate birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or in the country temporarily. This order has faced immediate legal challenges, with lower courts blocking its implementation due to potential constitutional violations.
The central issue for the court is whether Mr. Trump’s directive aligns with the Citizenship Clause of the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act, which guarantee citizenship to individuals born on U.S. soil who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Should the court uphold the executive order, it would overturn a longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment that has granted citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the country for over a century. During oral arguments in April, it appeared that a majority of the justices were inclined to reject the president’s directive, which would signify a significant setback for his immigration policies.
In the cases of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the court is examining laws from 27 states that restrict transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports. Specifically, legal challenges from West Virginia and Idaho are under review, as these cases are among the most anticipated of the term. The court must determine if these state laws infringe upon the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause or violate Title IX.
Idaho was the first state to implement a ban on transgender girls and women competing in sports that correspond with their gender identity. A federal appeals court indicated that Idaho’s legislation is likely unconstitutional. However, after the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, Lindsay Hecox, the transgender woman involved, requested her case be dismissed, stating she had voluntarily withdrawn her claims against the state.
Meanwhile, in West Virginia, the law was challenged by Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender high school student who started her social transition in third grade and has undergone hormone therapy and puberty blockers. A federal appeals court ruled that the law discriminated against her based on sex. The Supreme Court heard arguments in January and seemed inclined to uphold these state bans.
Additionally, Mr. Trump has sought to broaden the scope of executive authority during his second term, including the dismissal of members from multi-member boards and commissions without cause. Notably, he removed Rebecca Slaughter from her position at the Federal Trade Commission, a decision that contradicted a 1914 law restricting the president’s ability to dismiss an FTC commissioner except for issues like inefficiency or misconduct. Slaughter filed a lawsuit, and a federal appeals court allowed her to remain in her position while the case was pending.
In September, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Trump could terminate Slaughter and agreed to address whether the removal protections for FTC members infringe upon the separation of powers, as well as whether to reverse the precedent set by the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established that Congress could limit the president’s ability to fire officials from multi-member agencies at will.
If the Supreme Court sides with Mr. Trump and nullifies the removal protections for FTC members, it would enhance presidential authority over certain independent agencies that Congress intended to shield from political influence.
The court reviewed Slaughter’s case in December and seemed inclined to support the president’s position. Additionally, Mr. Trump attempted to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, a move unprecedented in the institution’s history. Trump alleged that Cook had misrepresented information regarding mortgage filings linked to properties before her nomination by former President Biden in 2021. He claimed he had “sufficient cause” for her removal due to alleged misconduct.
Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not faced criminal charges. She filed a lawsuit to reclaim her position, arguing that Trump’s actions violated the Federal Reserve Act, which permits the president to remove a Fed governor “for cause,” although the term is not explicitly defined. Both lower courts and the Supreme Court have allowed Cook to continue her role on the Fed Board, and the court is currently considering whether Trump can dismiss her while her legal challenge is ongoing. It is important to note that the justices are not deliberating the legality of the removal protections for Fed governors.
While the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seems likely to permit the president to dismiss officials from certain independent agencies at will, the court has indicated a different perspective regarding the Federal Reserve.
