Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. The impending new year leads us to reflect on the Supreme Court term thus far and what's ahead in 2026. The bottom line is that the court's Republican-appointed majority has already delivered wins for Republicans and signaled that it's ready to deliver more — the only question being how many and how big those wins will be.
Let's start with what the court has already done since the term started in October. Arguably its biggest move was approving Texas' GOP-friendly congressional map earlier this month. Other 6-3 actions include letting executions go forward — declining to extend what Justice Sonia Sotomayor called "the barest form of mercy" — and letting the Trump administration implement its preferred sex-marker policy for passports, which a lower court found would risk increasing the likelihood of suicidal ideation for transgender people.
Much of the term's work is to come, with rulings due on tariffs, redistricting, campaign finance, presidential power and more. On that presidential power front, this month's hearing in Trump v. Slaughter suggested the court is prepared to overturn a 90-year-old precedent that has protected independent agencies. One of the first hearings to come in the new year, in Trump v. Cook, will take on the issue in the context of the Federal Reserve, which the court has signaled it wants to save from executive domination, even if the majority's expansive theory of presidential power makes it unclear how it will accomplish that apparent goal.
Birthright citizenship will also be in the mix of rulings that should come by early July. The court recently agreed to review the administration's bid to singlehandedly change what it means to be an American, in the face of the Constitution, law and precedent stretching back more than 100 years. The question is whether the case, called Trump v. Barbara, will result in the Roberts Court's most shocking decision yet, or whether it will stand out as a commonsense rejection of the administration's most audacious move yet — one that has been roundly rejected in the lower courts.
In the meantime, the shadow docket looms as a source of high court action that could come any time, including on the administration's long-pending request to deploy the National Guard in Chicago. For more on an effort to shine a light on the needlessly murky docket, check out this week's "Ask Jordan" below.
Have any questions or comments for me? I'd love to hear from you! Please submit them through this form for a chance to be featured in a future newsletter.
