As the U.S. Supreme Court kicked off its new term on October 6, 2025, the justices faced a docket brimming with high-stakes cases poised to shape the nation’s political, legal, and social landscape for years to come. From the contentious boundaries of presidential power to the ongoing battles over voting rights and the rights of LGBTQ Americans, the Court’s decisions in the coming months are set to reverberate well beyond the marble halls of Washington.
The first day of the term saw Chief Justice John Roberts formally open proceedings, swiftly rejecting over 800 pending appeals—including a high-profile challenge by Ghislaine Maxwell to her conviction in the Jeffrey Epstein case, according to the Associated Press. Yet, the focus quickly shifted to the major cases awaiting argument, many of which center on former President Donald Trump’s expansive assertions of executive authority and the enduring fight over who gets to shape the rules of American democracy.
One of the most consequential developments this term involves the future of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the landmark law designed to protect against racial discrimination in voting. On October 6, California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined 22 other attorneys general in urging the Supreme Court to review a lower court decision that prevents individuals from suing to enforce Section 2 of the VRA. For nearly 60 years, both the U.S. Attorney General and private citizens have been able to file lawsuits under Section 2, which prohibits racially discriminatory voting practices. But that long-standing balance was upended when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that only the federal government—not private citizens or organizations—could bring such cases.
This Eighth Circuit decision arose from a 2022 lawsuit, in which individual voters and two tribes challenged North Dakota’s state legislative districts adopted after the 2020 census. A district court had found the map unlawfully diluted Native Americans’ votes, but the appeals court reversed that decision, effectively ending the ability of private citizens in Minnesota, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota to enforce Section 2. The Supreme Court has since temporarily halted the Eighth Circuit’s ruling at the plaintiffs’ request, but the fate of private enforcement hangs in the balance.
Attorney General Bonta, echoing the sentiments of his coalition, stressed the stakes: “Voting is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow, and for the past 60 years, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has helped ensure that Americans can cast their ballots free from racial discrimination. While federal enforcement has been essential, private citizens have been responsible for more than 90% of all Section 2 challenges between 1982 and 2024.”
The coalition’s amicus brief warns that concentrating enforcement solely in the hands of the U.S. Attorney General risks radical underenforcement of voting rights, especially given the limited resources available to the federal government. The brief also points to history: after the Supreme Court struck down the VRA’s preclearance provision in 2013, several states quickly enacted restrictive voting laws, suggesting that robust private enforcement serves as a crucial deterrent against discriminatory practices.
But voting rights aren’t the only area where the Court’s decisions could reshape the political landscape. In mid-October, the justices will hear a case on congressional redistricting in Louisiana, where the future of majority-Black, Hispanic, or Native American districts is at stake. The Republican-led state has abandoned its defense of a map that elected two Black members of Congress, instead urging the Court to reject any consideration of race in redistricting—a move that could have sweeping implications for the Voting Rights Act and the political power of minority communities across the country.
Chief Justice Roberts and the conservative majority have signaled skepticism toward race-based considerations in public life, most notably in the 2023 decision ending affirmative action in college admissions. If the Court sides with Louisiana, voting rights experts warn that Republican-controlled states could redraw political maps to eliminate virtually all majority-Black House districts, fundamentally altering the balance of power in Congress.
At the same time, the Supreme Court is poised to weigh in on a series of cases that test the outer limits of presidential power—many of them direct legacies of the Trump administration. In early November, the Court will consider whether the president can unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs under an emergency powers law, a central pillar of Trump’s economic agenda. Two lower courts have already ruled that the president lacks such authority, arguing that only Congress can levy taxes and tariffs. But the administration contends that the law grants the president broad discretion to regulate imports, and several federal appeals judges have agreed, setting the stage for a major constitutional showdown.
December will bring another pivotal case, this time on the president’s power to fire independent agency members at will. The Court is expected to revisit—or potentially overturn—a 90-year-old precedent that required cause, such as neglect of duty, before a president could remove Senate-confirmed officials. The conservative justices have already allowed controversial firings to proceed while the case plays out, despite lower-court findings that the dismissals were illegal. The three liberal justices have consistently dissented, highlighting the deep ideological divide on the bench.
Yet another Trump-era policy under review involves his executive order denying birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally or temporarily. Lower courts have blocked the order as unconstitutional, citing more than 125 years of precedent and an 1898 Supreme Court ruling. The case could be argued as soon as late winter or early spring, potentially reopening a debate that strikes at the heart of American identity and the meaning of citizenship.
The Court’s docket also includes a major test of LGBTQ rights, with cases from Idaho and West Virginia challenging state bans on transgender women and girls participating in certain sports competitions. The justices will weigh the constitutionality of these laws under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, the federal law that expanded opportunities for girls and women in public school sports. The outcome could have far-reaching effects on the rights of transgender Americans and the future of gender equity in athletics.
Adding to the term’s significance, the Court is reviewing a challenge to federal limits on political party spending coordinated with candidates, a move that could further reshape the campaign finance landscape. With no argument date set yet, the case is being closely watched by both parties, especially in light of Chief Justice Roberts’s record of striking down campaign finance regulations.
Behind the scenes, speculation swirls about the future composition of the Court itself. Justice Samuel Alito, who turns 76 in April 2026, is seen as the most likely to retire next summer—a move that would allow Trump, should he return to the White House, to nominate a younger conservative successor. While Alito has remained tight-lipped, observers note he recently signed a contract to write a book, fueling rumors about his plans. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas, at 77, shows no signs of stepping down, aiming to become the longest-serving justice in history by 2028.
With so much at stake and the ideological lines sharply drawn, Irv Gornstein of Georgetown University’s Supreme Court Institute summed up the mood: “If the same conservative-liberal split that has marked so many of Trump’s emergency appeals endures, we are in for one of the most polarizing terms yet.” As the justices begin their work, the nation watches—waiting to see how the Court’s decisions will shape the rules, rights, and realities of American life.
