Danger Ahead: Previewing the Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 Term

The Right to Vote 

Louisiana v. Callais 

(Oral arguments: Oct. 15) 

The far-right justices may further sabotage the Voting Rights Act (VRA), this time by making it unconstitutional to take race into consideration when crafting a remedy to racial discrimination in voting. 

After the 2020 Census, Louisiana adopted a congressional redistricting map with only one majority-Black district. Multiple courts found that this likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black voters. So Louisiana adopted a new map with two majority-Black districts. A group of self-described “non-Black” voters then sued the state. 

This case was actually before the Court last term, analyzing the plan under the Court’s decades of precedents interpreting the Voting Rights Act. But the justices didn’t reach a decision. Instead, at the end of the term, they announced they wanted the parties to address a more fundamental question: Did the creation of a second majority-Black district violate the 14^th or 15^th Amendments? 

In other words, the MAGA justices may be seeking a way not just to overturn prior voting-rights precedents, but also to strike down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act itself as unconstitutional. Justice Kavanaugh essentially invited a lawsuit when he posited in a previous case that while considering race to some extent might have been necessary when Congress updated the VRA in the 1980s, that might not be the case anymore. That argument echoes that used by the far-right justices to strike down the VRA’s preclearance provision in 2013. 

This means that we may end up with the bizarre result that the landmark law enacted to end racial discrimination in voting gets treated as itself racially discriminatory. The VRA’s longtime opponents might celebrate such a development. But it would be a devastating step backward toward a time before the Voting Rights Act empowered communities of color to have effective representation in city councils, state legislatures, and Congress. 

LGBTQ+ Equality 

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. 

(Oral arguments: not yet scheduled) 

These two cases involve laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender women and girls from female sports teams in public schools, ranging from elementary school to college. 

Before Idaho’s ban, high school and college policies let trans girls and women play in women’s sports if their testosterone levels weren’t too high. But in 2020, the state issued a blanket ban on their participation. Under its law, any athlete in a women’s sport can have her sex disputed. When that happens, the athlete has to present a statement signed by a doctor verifying that she has female anatomy, chromosomes, or testosterone levels. Lindsay Hecox challenged the law. She is a transgender woman athlete who wanted to play on women’s college sports teams. The Ninth Circuit found that the law was intended to discriminate against trans girls and women. 

Under circuit precedent, laws discriminating against trans people are subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause: The discrimination can be upheld only if it is “substantially related” to an “important government objective.” The court also held that the law discriminated on the basis of sex, which also triggers the same test. The Ninth Circuit held that the state’s categorical ban and intrusive verification requirement did not serve the state’s expressed goal of furthering women’s equality and promoting fairness in female athletic teams. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court decision that the ban cannot be enforced. 

The West Virginia case involved a much narrower court decision from the Fourth Circuit. West Virginia has a ban like Idaho’s. It was challenged by a 13-year-old transgender girl who took puberty-blocking medication and had publicly identified as a girl since third grade. She was forbidden from participating in her school’s cross-country and track teams, so she sued. The court analyzed the law under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education. Under circuit precedent, discrimination on the basis of gender identity is sex discrimination that is prohibited by Title IX. The court held that forcing this particular girl to play on boys’ teams would effectively exclude her from competition in all non-coed sports entirely, the very type of harm that Title IX was enacted to prevent. 

Both cases are now before the Supreme Court. On the constitutional issue, the justices may address whether laws discriminating against trans people merit heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. This was a question they bypassed in last term’s Skrmetti case. A ruling that they don’t merit heightened scrutiny would roll back trans rights in states covered by those circuits that require such scrutiny. 

The other legal question is whether bans such as these violate Title IX. In the employment context, the Supreme held in 2020 that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is by definition sex discrimination and therefore unlawful under Title VII. That 6-3 opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, but it is unclear whether they will apply the same logic to Title IX. 

Chiles v. Salazar 

(Oral arguments: Oct. 7) 

This case involves a challenge to law protecting LGBTQ+ children from the discredited and often harmful practice of “conversion therapy.” 

Colorado prohibits licensed counselors from engaging in “conversion therapy” with clients who are minors. Conversion therapy seeks to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ+ people. It dates to a time when being LGBTQ+ was considered a mental illness, and LGBTQ+ people were in all respects treated as dangerous outsiders and threats to our society. 

A counselor named Kaley Chiles sued the state. She claims she “counsels” minors who have what she calls “unwanted” sexual attractions or feelings about their gender. She bases her counseling on her own religiously-based feelings about LGBTQ+ people. In case there was any doubt about what those feelings are, she is represented by an organization called the Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the nation’s most notorious anti-equality organizations, which has advocated against the equality and dignity of LGBTQ+ people across a wide spectrum of society. 

Because her work with minors occurs through conversations, she claims the Colorado law triggers – and fails to meet – the strictest level of judicial scrutiny as a content-based abridgement of her First Amendment free speech rights. 

She lost in the lower courts. They held that talk therapy is no less medical in nature than surgery, and it can have a profound, life-altering impact on the patient. They treated the law as a regulation on mental health practice that incidentally involves speech, that it was not subject to heightened First Amendment scrutiny, and that it did not violate the Constitution. 

Now ADF is asking the Supreme Court to strike down the law protecting LGBTQ+ children, anticipating a receptive ear from the far-right justices who have shown a reflexive willingness to rule in favor of anti-LGBTQ+ parties. 

However, numerous individuals and organizations have submitted amicus briefs supporting the law. They include noted constitutional scholars, major professional mental health and medical associations, activists seeking to prevent LGBTQ+ teen suicide, and former practitioners of conversion therapy who now acknowledge the immense harm they caused. 

Eliminating Agency Independence

Trump v. Slaughter

(Oral arguments: December 2025)

The MAGA justices have already signaled their intent to overturn a key separation-of-powers precedent and hand Donald Trump complete power over agencies that Congress created to be independent and bipartisan.

Since the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the 19^th century, Congress and the president have recognized the need for some agencies to be insulated from political pressure. They have created numerous independent agencies whose leaders are nominated by the president subject to Senate confirmation, but then not removable by the president without cause. Examples include the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Supreme Court long ago upheld this type of structure as constitutional in a 1935 case called Humphrey’s Executor.

During his second term, Trump has illegally fired Democratic members of agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Of course, the illegally fired officials sued. And lower federal courts have generally held that the firings are likely so blatantly unconstitutional – and harmful – that the officials must be allowed to retain their positions while the litigation proceeds.

However, Trump’s collaborators at the Supreme Court have repeatedly stepped in to help him. In May, they let the firing of NLRB and MSPB leaders stay in effect. In July, they let his firing of the CPSC commissions go into effect. Each of these actions has been done through the shadow docket, in a 6-3 vote with no oral arguments and minimal explanation. And each time, the three justices still defending the Constitution – Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson – have vigorously dissented.

In September, they did it again: In a 6-3 shadow docket order, over a powerful dissent, they let his firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter go into effect.

But this time, they didn’t send the case back down for litigation to continue. Instead, they formally accepted the case for review. And they ordered the parties to address whether Humphrey’s Executor should be overturned.

The far-right justices have been signaling their desire to give Trump more power. This case is an important vehicle for that project.

Trump v. Cook

(Oral arguments: Jan. 2026)

This case involves Trump’s moves to illegally grab power over the Federal Reserve in direct violation of a law passed by Congress. It was precipitated by his firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, who was appointed by President Biden.

But it raises different legal issues from the FTC case above. Under the Glass-Steagall Act from the 1930s, the president can only fire a Federal Reserve governor “for cause.” In August, he fired Cook. To justify this, he accused her of engaging in misconduct before she joined the Fed. The allegations have been widely debunked. But they provided a fig leaf for Trump to claim he was acting consistent with the “for cause” provision.

Cook sued to protect her job – and the integrity of the Federal Reserve. A federal district court ordered that she keep her position while the lawsuit was pending. The judge found that she was likely to win for two reasons. First, the Glass-Steagall’s “for cause” provision is limited to things that the official does while in office. So even if Trump’s allegations were true, they don’t trigger the statute. The second reason is constitutional: Trump fired Cook without giving her due process of law to contest the allegations made against her.

Trump’s position is not surprising for an autocrat: He claims that as long as he gives a reason for firing her – any reason, no matter what – he has satisfied the statute, and courts have no right to take any action to stop him.

He asked the Supreme Court to put the lower court order on hold while the case is litigated. In late September, the justices stated they would hold oral arguments in January on whether to grant Trump’s motion. But for now, she can keep her position as the case goes forward.

Congress structured the Federal Reserve to protect it from undue political influence over decisions affecting the nation’s monetary policies. This is yet another example of Trump trying to remove all checks and balances on his power.

Money in Politics 

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC  

(Oral arguments: not yet scheduled) 

This is the latest in a line of cases that have severely undercut our ability to limit money in politics. Congressional Republicans are urging the justices to overturn a 2001 precedent upholding a campaign finance law that dates back to the 1970s. That law limits money that a political party can spend in coordination with a particular candidate. 

Congress long ago set limits on how much an individual may contribute directly to a political candidate. But Congress also knew that some people would try to get around those limits. One of those ways would be to give massive amounts above the cap to the candidate’s party, which would then spend it all in coordination with the candidate. So Congress set limits on how much a party can coordinate its spending with a candidate. 

In the 2001 FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee case, the Supreme Court upheld the party-coordination limit as a necessary way to enforce the individual limit. Now it is being challenged again. But this time, the case is before a Court that is hostile to the American people’s efforts to limit money in politics and the corruption that results. 

Since it is a federal law that is being challenged, it would normally be defended by the Justice Department. But the Trump administration has stated that it agrees with the Republicans and that it will not defend the law. That role will fall to the Democratic National Committee instead. The DNC notes that a ruling in favor of Republicans would “blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates through party committees’ coordinated expenditures.” 

Religious Liberty 

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections 

(Oral arguments: Nov. 10) 

This case involves whether an imprisoned Rastafarian man can sue the prison officials who forcibly shaved his head in violation of his religious exercise. 

When Damon Landor began his five-month prison sentence in Louisiana, his dreadlocks went to his knees. His right to religious exercise in prison is protected by a law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Like the similar Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), this law provides much greater protection to religious exercise than the First Amendment. Under RLUIPA, officials cannot substantially burden a prisoner’s religious exercise unless it is the least restrictive means to serving a compelling government interest. 

Landor kept on his person a copy of a Fifth Circuit opinion specifically holding that Louisiana penal officials must let Rastafarian prisoners keep their dreadlocks. After four months, he was transferred to a new facility. At intake, he showed the court opinion to a guard, who threw it in the trash and called for the warden. The warden demanded that Landor provide documentation from his sentencing judge to corroborate his claim that his dreadlocks were part of his religious exercise. Landor did not have that documentation. Then two guards took Landor to another room, handcuffed him to a chair, held him down, and shaved his head. 

After his release, Landor sued the warden and the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Corrections in their individual capacities, meaning they could personally be forced to pay damages for what happened. The defendants claim that RLIUPA does not authorize damage suits against them in their personal capacities, and the Fifth Circuit agreed. 

However, a 2020 Supreme Court precedent held that RLIUPA’s “cousin” RFRA allows lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual government employees who violate someone’s religious liberty rights under that law. The question for the Supreme Court is whether that same rule applies to RLIUPA. 

As the Supreme Court takes up this question, Landor’s case has generated support from across the ideological spectrum, including from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the ACLU, the Christian Legal Society, and the Alliance Defending Freedom. People For the American Way has joined an amicus brief on behalf of Landor. 

Gun Violence

Wolford v. Lopez

(Oral arguments: not yet scheduled)

This is a challenge to a gun safety law adopted by Hawaii in 2023. The specific issue in this case is whether Hawaii can ban people from carrying weapons onto someone else’s private property without permission if that property is generally held open for access by the public (such as shopping malls, restaurants, hotels, and privately owned parking garages).

In 2022’s Bruen case, the Court majority severely weakened the ability of states and cities to set reasonable restrictions on firearms. In Second Amendment challenges to gun safety laws, judges can no longer balance the individual’s right to own and carry firearms with the urgent need to prevent gun violence. Instead, judges can only uphold a firearms regulation if a comparable law existed at the time the Second or Fourteenth Amendments were adopted.

The next year, Hawaii revised its laws to make them consistent with Bruen. Under one of the new laws, a person can bring weapons onto another person’s property only with the property owner’s express permission. Otherwise, the default assumption is that the owner does not want people bringing weapons onto their property.

The law was challenged in court. The specific issue in this case involves application of the law to property that is held open for use by the public. The Ninth Circuit cited founding-era laws to determine that the nation has a tradition of establishing default rules relating to carrying firearms onto private property, including one from the 1770s specifically barring firearms on private property without permission. That law applied to all private property, regardless of whether it was help open to the public.

Now the case is before the Supreme Court. The gun owners claim that Bruen requires the law to be struck down. Hawaii disagrees. The state also likens the law to one prohibiting soliciting on private property without the owner’s permission. Such laws are considered constitutional, because they protect the property owner’s right to determine what to allow on their property.

Shortly before the new term began, the Court agreed to hear this case. As Bruen showed, the current Supreme Court majority has a deep hostility to laws that seek to effectively address gun violence.

Conclusion 

The Court has announced fewer than half of the total cases it will consider during the upcoming term. It is possible they will accept cases asking them to weaken or even overturn the Obergefell marriage equality decision, further sabotage access to abortion care, take away people’s power to sue to enforce the Voting Rights Act, and facilitate the mixing of church and state. 

And as Donald Trump and his allies continue their efforts to end our status as a free country, the Court may hear challenges to Trump’s sending people to concentration camps, his politically-based prosecutions, his efforts to prevent a fair vote in the 2026 midterms, his use of the military to occupy parts of the country where he is not popular, and more. 

Ultimately, whether Trump succeeds will depend on each one of us. Giving up is a recipe for losing our freedom. But as more people are more aware of the full extent of the MAGA assault on our rights, including the role of collaborationist justices and judges, the movement to restore our democracy will be strengthened. 

Next year, we will have the most important midterm elections in American history. Our nation’s courts, including the Supreme Court, will play an important part of that history.