May 13, 2026, 6:00 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump will find out in the coming weeks whether the Supreme Court‘s rejection of his signature tariffs was a one-off or if the justices have more bad news in store for him.
Before adjourning for the summer, the court must still rule on more than 30 cases, including a few that test Trump’s expansive view of presidential power.
Some outstanding decisions could have implications for this year’s midterm elections.
Two pending decisions could protect the rights of gun owners.
Others will determine if states can ban transgender athletes from female sports teams, if the maker of the popular Roundup weedkiller can be sued for not warning about possible cancer risks, and whether the federal government can systematically turn back asylum seekers before they reach the U.S. border with Mexico.
Here’s a look at the biggest cases expected to be decided by early July.
Birthright citizenship
After the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s tariffs in January, the president predicted the justices would also strike down his effort to sharply limit who qualifies for automatic U.S. citizenship.
Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term directing federal agencies not to recognize the citizenship of babies born in the United States if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.
The order is widely viewed as a legal long shot, and the justices have more than one way to stop it.
They could rule that the order violates the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The court could also rule against Trump more narrowly by finding that his executive order violates a 1952 immigration law.
Federal Reserve, other independent agencies
The justices also seemed unlikely to let the president fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors.
But in another case, a majority of the justices appeared ready to side with Trump on the issue of presidential control over other independent agencies. Such an historic decision could redefine how more than a dozen agencies operate and shift power from Congress to the White House.
Other curbs on immigration
In yet another dispute over presidential power, Trump argued the courts have no say in his decision to end deportation protections for Syrians and Haitians. Curtailing a humanitarian program for hundreds of thousands of immigrants is a significant part of Trump’s efforts to restrict immigration.
Immigrant rights advocates are challenging the terminations, saying the administration reached predetermined conclusions about whether Syria and Haiti are safe for the migrants to return to. But the administration counters that the law creating the Temporary Status Protection program bars any judicial review of which migrants may live and work in the United States.
The administration also wants the option of bringing back a migrant management practice to limit the number of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Under the practice, federal officials stand at the border and prevent undocumented migrants from physically setting foot on U.S. soil – at which point they would have the right to seek asylum under U.S. law.
The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling requiring the government to process claims from people who reach a port of entry.
Mail-in ballots and campaign spending
In one of the biggest cases of the term, the Supreme Court has already shaken up this year’s elections.
An ideologically divided court on April 29 severely limited the scope of the landmark Voting Rights Act, making it harder for racial minorities to challenge electoral maps as discriminatory. That ruling set off a scramble among some GOP-controlled states to impose new maps more favorable to Republicans.
Republicans have also asked the court to reject some states’ grace period for late-arriving mailed ballots. The case tests Mississippi’s law allowing absentee ballots mailed by Election Day to be counted if received within five days.
And Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance, are hoping the court will scrap a federal limit on how much parties can spend in coordination with candidates.
The cap – aimed at preventing wealthy donors from bypassing limits on what they can give federal candidates by funneling money through political parties – was passed in 1974 as part of Congress’ response to the Watergate scandal and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001.
Trans athletes
The court has handed several setbacks to the LGBTQ+ community in the past year, including a March decision rejecting Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for young people. The court said the ban infringed on the free speech rights of a Christian counselor.
The justices are also expected to back efforts in more than half the states to prevent transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams. But the court may leave unresolved whether states must impose such bans, rather than simply being permitted to do so.
Gun rights
Four years after the court expanded gun rights by creating a new “historical tradition” test for firearm rules, the justices continue to wrestle over how to apply that test to various laws.
In a case argued in January, the justices sounded likely to strike down a Hawaii law requiring gun owners to get permission before bringing a firearm into a store or other private property that’s open to the public.
Property owners always had the ability to restrict weapons. But Hawaii and a few other Democrat-led states flipped the default, prohibiting guns unless an owner gives express permission, rather than allowing guns unless they’re expressly prohibited.
In another gun rights case, the justices may loosen a federal law aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous or irresponsible people.
During the March oral arguments, the court debated whether a Texas man’s regular use of marijuana is a good enough reason to criminally charge him for owning a gun. It’s a felony under the Gun Control Act of 1968 for anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to have a gun.
Weedkiller cancer claims
An ongoing battle over whether the popular Roundup weedkiller causes cancer could get curtailed or supercharged depending on whether the justices allow the manufacturer to be sued for failing to warn of cancer risks from the active ingredient glyphosate.
Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, faces billions of dollars in potential liability. The company has said it may have to stop selling glyphosate to U.S. farmers if the lawsuits continue, a scenario major agricultural groups say would pose a “devastating risk to America’s food supply.”
Trump is backing Bayer, a move that has alarmed some of his Make America Healthy Again supporters.
The justices are deciding whether a federal law regulating pesticides prevents Roundup users from suing Bayer in state court. One successful litigant, who said he developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of exposure to glyphosate, was awarded $1.25 million by a Missouri jury.
