Presidential powers, LGBTQ rights and the role of race in elections are among a spate of high-profile issues before the Supreme Court as the justices take the bench Monday to begin a new term.
The court is poised to review 39 argued cases so far, including President Trump’s bid to keep his most significant economic initiative intact and a redistricting case that stands to upend a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Decisions are expected by summer.
At the same time, the court’s emergency docket continues to bloat with consequential requests that are expected to yield weighty rulings throughout the term.
Here are five key issues to watch as the term gets underway.
Trump docket
Just nine months into his second presidency, a handful of Trump’s efforts to expand executive power have already reached the Supreme Court and are set to be scrutinized by the justices this term.
In November, the justices will weigh Trump’s use of emergency powers to justify global tariffs as he seeks to refashion global trade.
The president used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which lets the president issue certain economic sanctions in an emergency to counter “unusual and extraordinary” threats, to authorize the sweeping tariffs. The use of that emergency, and whether that is legal, is at the heart of the case before the high court.
But no president had invoked the statute to impose tariffs before Trump, who did so in February to place levies on Canada, China and Mexico before expanding it in April and finally instituting it in late July. Trump placed varied percentages of tariffs on dozens of countries with a baseline 10 percent on several others. Lower courts have said the tariffs were not authorized by the IEEPA statute.
The high court will also hear arguments over Trump’s efforts to fire two independent agency leaders: Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter and Federal Reserve board of governors member Lisa Cook.
In the Slaughter case, the justices will examine Trump’s contention he can fire independent agency leaders at will — a reconsideration of the court’s 90-year-old precedent that insulated certain agencies from the White House’s whims in upholding the FTC’s removal protections as constitutional.
Cook’s firing was attributed to allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied. Her case presents distinct issues from Slaughter’s, including what qualifies as lawful “cause” for removal under the Federal Reserve Act and whether she received due process.
Arguments are set for December in Slaughter’s case and for January in Cook’s. The court allowed Trump to remove Slaughter from her post ahead of arguments but declined to temporarily greenlight his firing of Cook.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to fight hundreds of legal challenges to the president’s sweeping second-term agenda. It’s scored at least partial victories in all but two of its 26 emergency applications decided by the high court so far.
The court could hear additional Trump docket cases this term, as it did last term with the late addition of the administration’s emergency request to narrow nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship order.
LGBTQ issues
The Supreme Court is set to wade back into LGBTQ issues this term, after delivering blows to transgender rights advocates last term and on the emergency docket.
On Tuesday, the justices will hear arguments in a Colorado therapist’s challenge to a state law banning mental health care providers from using “conversion therapy” for minors, defined by the state as any practice or treatment that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
The therapist, Kaley Chiles, argues that the law forced her to deny voluntary counseling on exploring sexuality and gender in violation of both her and her clients’ religious beliefs and free speech rights. Lower courts rejected her suit, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit holding that the law regulates professional conduct, not speech.
The justices will also hear a pair of cases challenging transgender student-athlete bans.
Republican leaders in Idaho and West Virginia are set to defend their state bans on transgender athletes competing on girls and women’s school sports teams, setting up a legal fight that could impact laws in 27 states that restrict transgender athletes.
Lower courts let the transgender athletes try out or compete on their school teams.
This term’s cases follow the court’s June ruling upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines.
In May, the justices also allowed the Trump administration to begin enforcing a ban on transgender troops serving openly in the military after the Justice Department asked the court for an emergency ruling lifting a nationwide injunction blocking the policy.
In the meantime, the court is considering an emergency application from the administration to let Trump’s policy blocking transgender Americans from matching the sex listed on their passports with their gender identity be reinstated.
Elections
As the 2026 elections creep closer, the Supreme Court is set to hear three major election law cases that stand to shake up future races.
On Wednesday, the justices will consider reviving a lawsuit challenging Illinois’s ability to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day.
Though the legality of the practice itself is not before the justices, the court will weigh in on who can bring such lawsuits after lower courts ruled Rep. Michael Bost (R-Ill.) and two of Trump’s 2020 state electors did not have standing to sue.
Later in the month, the high court is set to rehear a major Louisiana redistricting battle with major implications for the future of the Voting Rights Act.
The court heard arguments over Louisiana’s addition of a second majority-Black congressional district last term but in June said it would hear a new round. This time, the arguments will focus on whether race-based redistricting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is still constitutional.
The battle over the state’s congressional maps has been waged for half a decade.
The court will also hear Vice President Vance and GOP committees’ bid to strike down federal limits on political parties’ spending made in coordination with campaigns, which they contend violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
Death penalty
The court is set to consider how multiple IQ scores factor into whether a person is eligible for the death penalty in Alabama’s push to execute a man who says he’s intellectually disabled.
Joseph Clifton Smith, who was convicted of capital murder for the 1997 beating death of Durk Van Dam, has taken five IQ tests, four of which placed his IQ in the low- to mid-70s.
The Supreme Court also previously ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” extends to executing intellectually disabled offenders and children.
A person whose IQ is 70 or lower is generally considered to be intellectually disabled. While lower courts said Smith’s IQ could fall below 70 because IQ tests have an error range, the state claims his five tests above 70 make that unlikely.
The justices agreed to hear the case after sitting on Alabama’s initial appeal of the federal appeals court’s decision blocking Smith’s execution for months last year, an unusual move for the high court.
The case lands before the justices as the Trump administration is angling for a more aggressive approach toward capital punishment.
Culture wars
The justices are also set to wade into the culture wars in a series of cases touching on abortion, religion and racial discrimination.
On Wednesday, the court will hear arguments over whether the U.S. Postal Service can be held liable for failing to deliver mail to a Black landlord who claims she was racially discriminated against by her carriers.
Later this term, the justices will mull whether a network of anti-abortion clinics can mount a First Amendment challenge in federal court to a subpoena seeking donor records.
They’ll also weigh whether a former Louisiana inmate can receive damages from prison officials for forcibly shaving his dreadlocks despite his Rastafari beliefs under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
And the court will consider whether to revive a Christian evangelist’s lawsuit challenging a Missouri city ordinance, which barred demonstrating outside an amphitheater, that he was convicted of violating.
