(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court will head into 2026 with numerous high profile decisions to issue. Transgender athletes, birthright citizenship, presidential firing power, tariffs and redistricting are several issues that hang in the balance of the high court’s decision making.
The Center Square compiled many of the key cases that could have widespread ramifications swpwnsing on how the court rules.
Tariffs
A central focus of President Donald Trump’s economic policy – the ability to levy tariffs against foreign nations – will be tested before the nation’s highest court in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.
Twelve states and five small businesses challenged Trump’s authority to impose tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law that never mentions the word “tariff” and has never been used to impose tariffs. Trump argues that the law grants him emergency powers as president to act in times of crisis.
Justices on the court appeared divided over the issue during oral arguments on Nov. 5. Trump has repeatedly signified the importance of a favorable decision from the court.
“With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security,” Trump wrote on social media. “Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us.”
Trump has levied tariffs against dozens of nations including China, India, Brazil and South Korea. In some instances, Trump has negotiated deals with other countries for less severe tariff rates.
The average tariff rate is 17%, according to the Tax Policy Center. If all of Trump’s proposed tariff rates go into effect, the rate will increase to 21%.
Redistricting
Over the last year, states across the country have made significant redistricting pushes in preparation for the 2026 midterm elections. Texas, California, North Carolina and Ohio are just a few states where redistricting efforts have thus far succeeded.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais could decide the legality of state redistricting efforts. The case centers around a 2022 Louisiana Congressional districts map that created two majority-Black districts in the state.
Civil rights advocates said the case shows Louisiana’s extreme racial polarization and left Black voters with less electoral opportunity than white voters. However, after a shift in arguments, state leaders said drawing a majority-Black district diminishes white voters’ influence and makes assumptions about how people vote.
The case now goes to the heart of implied protections granted by the 14th and 15th Amendments. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the state, a new map will have to be drawn in Louisiana, one that is not bound by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Birthright Citizenship
The court will also hear a challenge to interpretations of the 14th Amendment in Trump v. Barbara, where it is expected to decide a case involving birthright citizenship.
Trump v. Barbara challenges Trump’s executive order that denies birthright citizenship to children born after Feb. 19, 2025, whose parents are either illegally present in or temporary residents of the United States.
The court could undo the understanding that birthright citizenship was granted under the 14th Amendment.
The Trump administration argues an individual’s parents must also have citizenship for their child to be considered a U.S. citizen.
“Parental status is what matters and whether they are under the protection and therefore within the allegiance of the sovereign,” said Illan Wurman, a law professor at the University of Minnesota.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments for Trump v. Barbara in early 2026. A date has yet to be set for the case to be heard.
Transgender Athletes
The high court will also hear two consequential cases over whether transgender individuals can participate in girls and women’s sports.
Little v. Hecox, out of Idaho, and B.P.J. v. West Virginia, focuses on whether limiting participation in girls and women’s sports teams based on biological sex violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
B.P.J. v West Virginia challenges the state’s “Save Women’s Sports Act,” which limits participation in sports based on biological sex. Challengers said the law violated Title IX discrimination protections. In Idaho, challengers are applying similar legal arguments to the state’s “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.”
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in both cases on Jan. 13.
Gun Rights
After a monumental 2022 decision that expanded the right to carry guns in public, the Supreme Court is set to revisit more challenges to gun laws in the country.
The high court has agreed to decide U.S. v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez, two separate cases that could significantly expand access to guns in the United States.
United States v. Hemani challenges whether federal statutes barring a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” violates the Second Amendment.
The Trump administration petitioned the high court to hear the case after a lower court struck down the law barring people who use drugs such as marijuana from possessing firearms.
Wolford v. Lopez tasks the court with deciding whether states can regulate where individuals can carry guns. A Hawaii law bans guns in places like beaches, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and gas stations.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez on Jan. 20.
Presidential Firing Power
One case many legal minds and individuals in Washington, D.C., are keeping a close eye on is Trump v. Slaughter, a case determining whether the president has authority to fire members of federal executive boards.
If the court upholds the president’s authority, it could undo an almost 90-year-old precedent that prevented President Franklin Delano Roosevelt from firing members of federal boards like the FTC.
The court allowed Trump to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner on the FTC. This decision came after years of court cases widening the president’s authority to fire members of federal boards.
“The court said that where a multi-member commission exercises substantial executive power, the president has the plenary power to remove that official,” said Kannon Shanmugam, a Supreme Court and appellate litigator.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter Dec. 8 and will issue a decision by July.
Climate Change Lawsuits
The high court’s first oral arguments of 2026 will be in Chevron Inc., v. Plaquemines Parish, a case that questions to what extent a state court can litigate against an oil company for its production of oil even if it obtained federal permits to produce the oil. A Plaquemines Parish jury in April ordered Chevron to pay $744 million in damages for its role in the degradation of the state’s coastal wetlands.
O.H. Skinner, executive director of Alliance for Consumers, told the Center Square these types of cases seek to score large settlements from the energy industry and stop oil production.
“The case arises from a broader campaign of woke lawfare in which activists and municipal governments seek to use courtrooms to determine what companies are allowed to produce and what consumers can buy,” Skinner said.
As the year changes to 2026, these significant cases and many more will be decided through the remainder of the Supreme Court’s consequential term.
