When the U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes on October 6, 2025, for its 2025–2026 term, the justices will face a docket brimming with high-stakes cases that could reshape the country’s legal and political landscape. According to reporting from Slate, the court’s so-called summer recess has been anything but quiet. While the public might expect a lull, the Supreme Court has been actively issuing decisions—often without explanation—on its emergency or “shadow” docket, repeatedly siding with the Trump administration. These snap rulings have already allowed the mass firing of federal employees, enabled the Department of Homeland Security to revoke parole status for noncitizens, and permitted deportations to third-party countries without regard for the risk of torture.
The upcoming term is set to tackle major issues ranging from LGBTQ+ rights and presidential authority to voting rights, religious freedoms, and the ever-controversial shadow docket. The court’s recent pattern—siding with the Trump administration in 84 percent of shadow docket cases—has not gone unnoticed by legal observers and advocates, raising concerns about the court’s impartiality and its willingness to upend longstanding precedents.
On the LGBTQ+ rights front, three headline-grabbing cases await. In Chiles v. Salazar, a Colorado law banning conversion therapy is under fire from Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist claiming the law infringes on her free-speech rights. Colorado, citing a Stanford Medicine study that found conversion therapy "is linked to greater symptoms of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidality," argues that the ban is justified to protect public health. The state insists that professional speech can be regulated more strictly than personal speech. If the court rules in Chiles’s favor, conversion therapy could return in states nationwide, a prospect that alarms many mental health advocates.
Two other cases, Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., center on transgender athletes’ participation in women’s sports. Hecox, a college student from Idaho, wishes to join the Boise State University women’s track team but is barred by a state law. She previously won in lower courts but now seeks to drop her case, citing illness, the death of her father, and, as she put it, the "negative public scrutiny" she endured. Meanwhile, B.P.J., a high school student in West Virginia, was initially blocked from joining her school’s girls’ teams but secured an injunction allowing her to compete. Both cases challenge bans that, according to the NCAA, address a vanishingly small issue—fewer than 10 of over 500,000 collegiate athletes are transgender—but have become a flashpoint in the broader culture war. Should the Supreme Court side with Idaho and West Virginia, it could energize the more than 700 anti-trans bills introduced across the country in 2025 alone.
Presidential power is also in the spotlight. Learning Resources v. Trump examines whether President Trump can use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose tariffs. The administration argues that IEEPA’s authority over imports implies tariff power, even though the law never mentions tariffs. Illinois-based toy company Learning Resources claims the tariffs will cost them $100 million in 2025—almost 45 times the previous year’s burden. If the Supreme Court upholds this interpretation, it could grant the president unprecedented control over economic policy, with ripple effects for businesses and consumers alike.
Voting rights and campaign finance are again before the court in three major cases. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission seeks to overturn a 2001 Supreme Court decision that limited coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, a move advocates say is necessary to prevent corruption. Louisiana v. Callais, scheduled for new arguments on October 15, 2025, could further erode the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Here, a group of “non-African American” voters, joined by the state of Louisiana, argue that Section 2 of the VRA—which has safeguarded minority voting rights for six decades—is itself unconstitutional. Should the court side with them, Southern states may swiftly redraw congressional maps, potentially reducing Black and minority representation. Finally, Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections challenges Illinois’s vote-by-mail program, which allows ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to two weeks later. If the Supreme Court finds for the challengers, voting by mail could be restricted nationwide, further complicating access to the ballot box.
Religious freedom is at issue in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety. Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian, sued after prison officials forcibly shaved his dreadlocks in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Notably, Landor had provided a copy of a Fifth Circuit opinion striking down similar grooming bans, only to see one official throw the ruling in the trash. The Supreme Court must decide whether the officials can be held personally liable for violating Landor’s rights—a ruling with broad implications for religious liberty in correctional settings.
The shadow docket looms large, with four Trump-related cases pending. In Trump v. Cook, the administration seeks to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board, potentially threatening the board’s political independence. Trump v. Orr challenges a lower court’s order requiring the State Department to issue passports reflecting transgender Americans’ gender. We the Patriots USA v. Ventura Unified School District asks the court to exempt students from California’s vaccination requirements, while Noem v. National TPS Alliance could allow Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to end protected status for Venezuelan immigrants, risking their return to dangerous conditions. According to Slate, the Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in 84 percent of shadow docket cases, fueling criticism that the court is acting as a "court of repeal" rather than a neutral arbiter.
The legal battles extend far beyond the Supreme Court. As Inside Higher Ed reports, higher education groups, students, and advocacy organizations have filed a wave of lawsuits to block Trump administration policies, from executive orders and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) guidance to the dismantling of the Education Department. Lawsuits began almost immediately after Trump’s first day in office and show no signs of abating. Harvard University, for example, is fighting to restore more than $2.7 billion in frozen research funding and defend its ability to enroll international students. In a recent development, a federal judge restored frozen grants to the University of California, Los Angeles from the National Institutes of Health, Defense, and Transportation Departments. Nearly all of UCLA’s frozen grants have now been reinstated, though settlement talks with the administration are ongoing. Of the 42 higher education lawsuits tracked by Inside Higher Ed, judges have ruled against the Trump administration in two-thirds of cases so far.
With a Supreme Court term poised to decide issues of civil rights, executive power, and democratic norms, and with legal challenges to Trump-era policies proliferating in lower courts, the coming year could redefine the boundaries of American law and governance. Each decision will reverberate not just in Washington, but in the lives of everyday Americans, as the nation watches the Roberts court shape the next chapter of U.S. history.
