For the past eight months, the United States Supreme Court has played a pivotal—and, to some, controversial—role in shaping the early days of President Donald Trump’s second term. With a conservative supermajority firmly in place, the Court has repeatedly cleared legal obstacles to Trump’s wide-ranging executive actions, lifting about 20 rulings that initially blocked his initiatives, according to Bloomberg. Now, as the Court embarks on its nine-month term that began in October 2025, it faces a series of high-stakes cases that could redefine the boundaries of presidential power and the independence of key government institutions.
The Supreme Court’s docket is brimming with consequential legal questions. Among the most prominent: the legality of Trump’s global tariffs, his authority to control independent regulatory agencies, and a challenge to the longstanding interpretation of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Each of these cases carries significant implications—not just for Trump’s agenda, but for the future balance of power between the executive branch and the rest of government.
Since Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025, his administration has unleashed a torrent of executive orders and policy shifts. The resulting wave of litigation has kept the Supreme Court busy. In just eight months, the Court has acted on 23 emergency requests from the Trump administration, granting at least part of what the president sought in 20 cases. These have included disputes over mass firings, federal grant funding, alleged racial profiling by immigration agents, and access to sensitive Social Security data, as reported by Bloomberg.
Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed in 2005, has emerged as a central figure in this new era of judicial decision-making. Roberts authored the 2024 ruling that granted presidents criminal immunity for official acts while in office—a decision that shielded Trump from prosecution related to the 2021 Capitol riot. The ruling described the president as “the only person who alone composes a branch of government,” a phrase that critics say has emboldened Trump and set a precedent for expanded executive authority.
Legal scholars are watching Roberts closely. Kate Shaw, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told Bloomberg, “It remains to be seen how much of the earlier version of Roberts remains—or whether he’s somehow become convinced that what the constitutional order needs right now is more presidential power and immunity.” Roberts has long been known for his minimalist approach, favoring narrow, consensus-driven decisions. Yet the current Court, with its strong conservative bloc, has shown little appetite for incrementalism. “It’s clear that there is not a majority for minimalism, or at least not consistently, and that puts him in a difficult position,” another legal expert noted.
Roberts has largely supported Trump’s major legal victories this year, dissenting only twice in cases related to the administration’s efforts to cut off federal grants. He has also played a key role in decisions that allow the president to fire the heads of independent agencies, despite congressional protections designed to shield those officials from political pressure. In April 2025, the Court ruled in favor of Trump’s authority to remove such agency heads, further consolidating executive influence over institutions that were previously more insulated from the White House.
One of the most closely watched cases centers on the Federal Reserve. On October 1, 2025, the Supreme Court deferred action on whether Trump could immediately fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, instead agreeing to hear oral arguments in January 2026, according to NBC News. For now, Cook remains in her post as the legal battle unfolds. Trump has moved to dismiss Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud—charges she denies and which bank documents reportedly contradict. The White House maintains, “We look forward to ultimate victory after presenting our oral arguments before the Supreme Court in January.” Cook’s legal team, meanwhile, stated, “Wednesday’s decision rightly allows Governor Cook to continue in her role on the Federal Reserve Board, and we look forward to further proceedings consistent with the Court’s order.”
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the independence of the Federal Reserve, an institution traditionally shielded from direct political interference. Trump has openly criticized the Fed for not lowering interest rates quickly enough and has already appointed one of his advisers, Stephen Miran, to the Board. With Jerome Powell’s term as chair expiring next year, Trump could soon have the opportunity to further reshape the central bank’s leadership.
The Supreme Court is also preparing to weigh in on Trump’s signature economic policy: the imposition of global tariffs that impact trillions of dollars in trade. The central legal question is whether the president can use a law granting broad powers to address national security, foreign policy, and economic emergencies to justify tariffs—even though the law does not explicitly mention them. Three lower courts have ruled that Trump exceeded his authority, but the Supreme Court appears poised to consider the issue on an ultra-expedited basis, aiming for a decision before late June or early July 2026.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a June ruling involving the Federal Communications Commission, wrote that the “major questions doctrine”—which requires explicit congressional authorization for sweeping agency actions—should not apply in matters of foreign affairs and national security. “The usual understanding is that Congress intends to give the president substantial authority and flexibility to protect America and the American people,” Kavanaugh explained. For Roberts, the dilemma may be less about legal doctrine than his willingness to invalidate a president’s marquee economic initiative. As former Solicitor General Neal Katyal observed, “They’re really going to have to grapple with whether they are going to overturn the president’s signature economic policy.”
Another major test looms over Trump’s efforts to restrict birthright citizenship. His executive order, issued on January 20, 2025, seeks to limit citizenship to children with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder—challenging the widespread interpretation that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship to nearly everyone born on US soil. The Supreme Court, in June 2025, considered a group of challenges to Trump’s initiative. While the Court’s conservatives initially backed Trump, they have not clearly endorsed his interpretation of the 14th Amendment, suggesting the administration may face a less receptive audience as litigation continues.
Beyond these headline cases, the Court is also handling emergency requests related to the rights of Venezuelan immigrants and the gender designation on passports, underscoring the breadth of legal battles sparked by Trump’s executive actions.
Legal experts caution that it’s still too early to predict the long-term trajectory of the relationship between the Trump administration and the Supreme Court. As former Solicitor General Gregory Garre told Bloomberg, “It is still extremely early to gauge the relationship between the administration and the court and the trajectory they are on. We’re not even a year into the second Trump presidency. Things could look different a year or two from now.”
As the Supreme Court’s term unfolds, the nation watches closely to see how far the justices will go in defining—and perhaps expanding—the outer limits of presidential power in modern America.
