Supreme Court Prepares for Final Opinions of Term, Addresses Key Cases

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has announced that today will mark the final opinion announcement day for its current term. Four cases await decisions, addressing topics including birthright citizenship, transgender athletes in sports, and campaign finance.

These remaining cases are: _Trump v. Barbara_, concerning birthright citizenship; _West Virginia v. B.P.J._ and _Little v. Hecox_, both related to transgender athletes; and _National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission_, involving campaign finance regulations.

### Recent Rulings and Term Updates

On Monday, the Court issued opinions in four cases:

* In _Trump v. Slaughter_, the Court ruled 6-3 that the Federal Trade Commission's for-cause removal provision infringes on the separation of powers. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. * In _Trump v. Cook_, the Court denied the Trump administration's request to remove Federal Reserve System Governor Lisa Cook from office as her challenge to her firing proceeds. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett filed dissenting opinions, with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining Justice Alito's dissent. * In _Watson v. Republican National Committee_, the Court held 5-4 that federal Election-Day statutes do not mandate mail-in ballots be received by Election Day for counting. Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion. Justice Alito authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, and in part by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. * In _Chatrie v. United States_, the Court determined that police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained Okello Chatrie’s location data from Google. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, while Justices Alito and Barrett wrote dissenting opinions.

Earlier Monday, the Court added six cases to its oral argument docket for the 2026-27 term. It also declined to hear President Donald Trump’s appeal of a $5 million judgment in a case brought by E. Jean Carroll. Additionally, Justice Clarence Thomas denied Roy Moore's request to block a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruling from taking effect.

Eight of the nine justices released their financial disclosures for 2025 on Monday. Justice Alito received an extension for his disclosure.

### Outstanding Cases

**_Trump v. Barbara_**

The Court is reviewing challenges to President Trump's executive order, signed on January 20, 2025, which aimed to alter the automatic conferral of citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to parents who are either undocumented or temporary residents. The order stipulates that non-citizen parents would not automatically grant citizenship to their U.S.-born children after 30 days. The central question is whether this order conflicts with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment or a federal immigration law codifying that clause.

Lower courts have consistently ruled against the order, preventing its implementation. The Trump administration asserts the executive order 'restores the original meaning' of the citizenship clause. Conversely, challengers contend the administration is seeking 'a remaking of our Nation’s constitutional foundations.'

**_West Virginia v. B.P.J._ and _Little v. Hecox_**

These cases examine laws in West Virginia and Idaho that restrict transgender athletes from participating in women's and girls' school sports teams. The cases were argued separately because the _Hecox_ ruling from a lower court focused on the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, while the _B.P.J._ ruling addressed Title IX, a federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs.

The states involved have argued their laws aim to preserve fairness and safety in sports, not to discriminate against transgender athletes.

**_National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission_**

This case reconsiders campaign finance restrictions, specifically limits on the amount of money political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate. The Court has been asked to invalidate these limits and potentially overturn its 2001 decision in _FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee_.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee maintain that these coordinated spending limits violate the First Amendment. The Trump administration supports their position. Roman Martinez, appointed to present an opposing view, argues the challengers lacked the standing to sue or the right to expedited review.

### Quotes from Monday’s Rulings

Chief Justice John Roberts in _Trump v. Slaughter_ stated, “To ‘discharg[e] the duties of his trust,’ the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

In her dissenting opinion in _Slaughter_, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “The [majority’s] result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before. It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him. In granting the President this unbridled authority, the Court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty.”