Supreme Court Enters Final Month With Major Trump Cases Pending

The Supreme Court enters June with roughly 26 opinions still pending, marking the final stretch before the justices disperse for summer recess. The remaining decisions include some of the term's highest-profile cases, with consequences for federal immigration policy, voting access, gun rights, and the scope of presidential authority.

President Donald Trump has experienced mixed results at the court so far. In February, six justices rejected his administration's sweeping tariff policy in *Learning Resources v. Trump*. Trump responded sharply, calling the majority justices "an embarrassment" and singling out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom he appointed during his first term.

On birthright citizenship, Trump attended oral arguments in *Trump v. Barbara* in April—the first sitting president to do so in decades—to support his executive order ending automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporarily present immigrants. After hearing arguments, at least five justices and possibly as many as seven appeared prepared to block the order. Trump acknowledged the possibility of defeat last month, saying the court "will probably rule against me because they seem to like doing that."

The court appears likely to reject Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook. Under federal law, the president can remove Fed governors only "for cause." Trump claimed Cook committed mortgage fraud before joining the board in 2022. Cook disputes the allegations and won rulings from lower courts requiring her to remain at the Fed while her challenge proceeds. After hearing arguments in *Trump v. Cook* in January, the justices signaled sympathy for Cook's position.

The Trump administration fares better in *Trump v. Slaughter*, concerning the firing of former Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter. Trump fired Slaughter via email last year, citing conflict with his administration's priorities rather than the legal grounds required—inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. The Supreme Court intervened to allow her removal to proceed while litigation continues, a move that signals likely victory for the administration.

On immigration enforcement, the administration appears positioned to win approval for its policy of systematically turning back asylum seekers before they reach the U.S.-Mexico border. Justices questioned whether that policy violates federal law allowing immigrants to apply for asylum upon arrival in the United States. A majority seemed skeptical of that argument in *Mullin v. Al Otro Lado*, heard in March.

The outcome remains less certain in *Mullin v. Doe*, where the administration seeks to strip Temporary Protected Status from Haitian and Syrian nationals. The court heard arguments April 29. Last year, justices twice paused lower court rulings blocking similar efforts to end TPS designations for Venezuelans.

The court has already ruled on several major cases outside the Trump litigation. In *Chiles v. Salazar*, justices determined that Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors violated a counselor's First Amendment rights. In *Louisiana v. Callais*, they struck down the state's congressional map, which included two majority-Black districts created in response to a Voting Rights Act ruling, and made it significantly harder for challengers to prove maps dilute minority voting power.

Two election cases loom large. In *Watson v. Republican National Committee*, a majority of justices appeared ready to overturn a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if postmarked by Election Day and received within five days. Federal law, they suggested, requires ballots to arrive by Election Day itself.

In *National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission*, several justices signaled openness to a First Amendment challenge against federal limits on the amount political parties can spend coordinating with candidates.

On transgender issues, the court previously upheld Tennessee's restrictions on medical treatment for transgender minors by a 6-3 vote. Justices now face two cases on state bans preventing transgender women and girls from competing on women's sports teams. After January arguments in *Little v. Hecox* and *West Virginia v. B.P.J.*, the court appeared inclined to uphold those bans.

The court will also address Second Amendment scope in *Wolford v. Lopez*, challenging Hawaii's requirement that gun owners obtain explicit permission from property owners before carrying firearms on private land. A solid majority appeared skeptical of the law. The federal government supported the challenge.

However, the government appears unlikely to prevail in *United States v. Hemani*, where a Texas man challenges a federal law making it illegal for drug users to possess firearms. Justices seemed doubtful about that prohibition.

Decisions in all cases are expected by late June or early July.