Latest News

Top cases heard by the US Supreme Court in 2025-2026

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to decide a number of cases during its upcoming term that begins in October. These cases include issues like tariffs, transgender, campaign finance, crisis pregnancy centers and religious rights. The following are some of the cases that will be heard during the upcoming court term. Separately, the court has also acted in emergency cases in several cases that involved challenges to President Donald Trump’s policies.

TRUMP TARIFFS On September 9, the court agreed to rule on the legality Trump's sweeping tariffs around world, a test that will be a major part of his agenda for economics and trade. The court heard the Justice Department appeal against a lower-court ruling that Trump had overstepped his powers in imposing his tariffs, which were imposed under a federal emergency law. This case could result in trillions of dollars worth of customs duties for the next decade. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled Trump had overreached by invoking a 1977 act known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in order to impose tariffs. This ruling was made in response to challenges from five small businesses as well as 12 U.S. States. A toy manufacturer will also be bringing a separate case. Arguments will be held in the first week of Novembre.

TRANSGENDER SPORTS PARTICIPATION On July 3, the court decided to hear Idaho and West Virginia's bid to enforce state laws that prohibit transgender athletes in female sports teams of public schools. This is another civil rights challenge against Republican-backed restrictions for transgender individuals. Idaho and West Virginia appealed lower court decisions siding with transgender plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argued the laws discriminate based upon sex or transgender status, in violation of U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment equal protection guarantee and Title IX civil right statute which prohibits sex discrimination in schools. The arguments have not been scheduled.

CAMPAIGN-FINANCE On June 30, the court agreed to hear a Republican challenge, based on free speech grounds, to a federal campaign finance provision that limits spending by parties in coordination and cooperation with candidates for office. The case involved Vice President JDVance. Vance and two Republican committees, both of whom were running for U.S. Senate at the time the litigation started, appealed the ruling by a lower court that upheld the restrictions on how much money political parties could spend on campaigns, with the input of candidates they supported. The question is whether the federal restrictions on coordinated campaign expenditures violate First Amendment protections against government abridgment. The arguments have not been scheduled.

GAY "CONVERSION THERAPEUTY" The Justices agreed on March 10 to hear a Christian Therapist's challenge to a Democratic Colorado law that bans "conversion therapy", which is intended to change a child's sexual orientation. Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor, appealed the decision of a lower court that rejected her claim that a 2019 statute violated the First Amendment by censoring her communications with her clients. The state claims it regulates professional conduct and not speech. Chiles, a Colorado-based Christian therapist who believes that "people flourish when they live in accordance with God's plan including their biological gender," according to court documents. Arguments will be held on October 7.

CRISIS PREGNANCY COUNTER The court agreed on June 16 to reconsider reviving the operator of a New Jersey crisis pregnancies center's attempt to stop the Democratic-led attorney general's investigation into whether the Christian faith based organization misled women to believe it offered abortions. First Choice Women's Resource Centers has appealed the ruling of a lower court that said the organization had to contest the attorney general's summons in state court prior to bringing a lawsuit against it. Crisis pregnancy centers offer services to pregnant women in order to prevent them from getting an abortion. Abortion rights activists have criticized them for not advertising their anti-abortion position. First Choice argues that it has the right to take its case to federal court, because it alleges a violation of First Amendment rights for free speech and freedom of association. The arguments have not been scheduled.

RASTAFARIAN INMATES The Justices took up on June 23, a Rastafarian's lawsuit against state prison officials in Louisiana for holding him down and shaving him bald, in violation of their religious beliefs. Damon Landor's religion dictates that he let his hair grow. He appealed the decision of a lower court to dismiss his lawsuit filed under a U.S. statute protecting against religious infringements by state and local government. Landor was not allowed to sue officials individually for damages under this law, according to the lower court. The law in question protects religious rights for people who are confined in institutions like prisons and jails. The arguments are scheduled for 10 November.

DEATH ROW INMATES The court decided on June 6 to hear the appeal of Alabama officials against a ruling that an Alabama man convicted of murder in 1997 was intellectually disabled. This finding spared him the death penalty, but the Republican-led state is still pushing to execute him. According to the lower court's analysis of Joseph Clifton Smith's IQ scores and expert testimony, he was deemed intellectually disabled. According to a Supreme Court precedent from 2002, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unjust punishment is violated by executing a person with intellectual disabilities. The arguments have not been scheduled. Arguments will be held on November 4.

LOUISIANA ELECTORAL DISTRECTS The court will again hear arguments in a dispute involving a Louisiana election map that increased the number of U.S. Congress districts with a majority of Black people in the state. The court announced on August 1, that it would assess the legality a key component in the landmark Voting Right Act. This could give its conservative majority the chance to eliminate a provision that was enacted 60-years ago to prevent racial bias when voting. Justices heard arguments on March 24, but ordered on June 27 that the matter be debated again. State officials and civil right groups appealed an earlier court ruling which found that the map of Louisiana's six U.S. House of Representatives district - now with two Black majority districts instead of one - was in violation of the Constitution's equal protection promise. Arguments will be held on October 15.

COX COMMUNICATIONS PIRACY VERDICT On June 30, the justices took up a dispute over copyright between Cox Communications, an internet service provider, and a group music labels. This was in response to a court decision that had thrown out a $1 Billion jury verdict against Cox Communications for alleged music piracy by Cox users. Cox Communications appealed the lower court decision that it remained liable for any copyright violations by its customers despite the decision to overturn the jury verdict. Sony Music, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group are among the labels. The arguments have not been scheduled.

CHEVRON & EXXON COASTAL POLLLUTION On June 16, the court agreed to hear an application by Chevron and Exxon Mobil, as well as other oil and gas firms to move lawsuits filed by two Louisiana municipalities accusing them of damaging the state's coastline over a decade-long period to federal court. The companies appealed the lower court's decision rejecting their claim that the lawsuits should be heard in federal court, because the parishes Plaquemines & Cameron were suing for oil production undertaken during World War II to fulfill U.S. Government refinery contracts. Federal court is viewed as a more friendly venue for such litigation. Arguments have not been scheduled.

ENBRIDGE PIPELLINE DISPUTE On June 30, the justices decided to hear Enbridge’s request to change the venue of Michigan’s lawsuit to force the Canadian pipe-line operator to cease operating a line beneath the Straits of Mackinac (waterways connecting two of the Great Lakes) due to environmental concerns. Enbridge appealed the lower court's decision rejecting its request to transfer the case from state to federal court. Federal court is considered to be more favourable to defendants. The arguments have not been scheduled.

(source: Reuters)