Earlier this October, legal scholars and watchdog groups alike turned a sharp focus to the U.S. Supreme Court as it prepared to open its 2025-2026 term, a docket now brimming with 39 granted cases that could reshape the nation’s legal landscape. The stakes are high: the Court will weigh in on matters ranging from executive authority and voting rights to free speech and the increasingly controversial use of its so-called "shadow docket." As the justices brace for a consequential year, public trust in the institution hovers near record lows, and critics from across the spectrum are sounding alarms about the Court’s direction and its role in American democracy.
At a recent panel hosted by the Program in Law & Government and reported by Vanderbilt Law School, faculty experts dissected the major cases on the horizon. Among the most closely watched is Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could upend nearly a century of precedent on presidential power over independent agencies. The dispute centers on the removal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter by former President Donald Trump, and asks whether statutory "for-cause" protections for FTC commissioners violate the separation of powers, and if the foundational 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled.
Professor Lisa Bressman, Vice Dean at Vanderbilt Law School, offered a measured perspective: “I’m not 100% sure that overruling Humphrey’s Executor will have the effect of dismantling or crumbling the administrative state. Because the President has been pretty effective at steering and controlling independent agencies. There’s pretty good empirical evidence that the President has significant control, notwithstanding these removal restrictions.”
Her colleague, Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, added historical context, noting that even early progressives such as President Woodrow Wilson saw administrative officials as accountable to presidential policy. “Good behavior in office in fact meant alignment with executive direction. This expectation is not very distinct, to me, from what we would say today is at-will tenure,” he said. Bressman emphasized that requiring the president to justify removals creates transparency and a measure of accountability in how executive power is exercised: “That kind of transparency itself can interpose at least an opportunity for accountability.”
The debate over presidential authority and independent agencies is hardly new. “The independent agency has been in the crosshairs by conservatives and originalists for decades,” Fitzpatrick remarked. “Justice Scalia hated the independent agencies, and getting rid of Humphrey’s Executor has been a goal for many, many decades. We’ve just been inching closer and closer to it over the years.”
Another pivotal case, Louisiana v. Callais, probes the constitutionality of race-conscious redistricting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The case challenges a plan requiring Louisiana to create a second majority-Black congressional district, raising the question of whether such districting constitutes an unconstitutional racial classification. Section 2 prohibits voting practices that diminish minority representation, but the 14th and 15th Amendments, as interpreted by the Court, prohibit government actions motivated by race. The panel noted that the majority of justices may be inclined to limit Section 2’s reach, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has argued that the Reconstruction Amendments were designed to address racial inequality, not to prohibit all race-conscious remedies.
Professor Francesca Procaccini explained, “The analysis would very quickly get you to a point where any kind of law that outlaws disparate impact discrimination could be viewed as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. When you think about not having a disparate impact on a racial minority, you are thinking about race. And if you can’t think about race at all, then you can’t think about not having a disparate impact on the basis of race.” Fitzpatrick echoed, “If anytime you think about race, it’s a racial classification, then the effects could be very broad. I think highlighting the disparate impact of civil rights laws is one example of something else that would now be a racial classification.”
Free speech and professional conduct collide in Chiles v. Salazar, where the Court will decide if state bans on conversion therapy for minors violate the First Amendment rights of licensed mental health professionals. Colorado’s law prohibits therapists from attempting to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The case raises thorny questions about where speech ends and professional conduct begins, and whether speech within a professional relationship deserves heightened constitutional protection. “I get deeply concerned at the distorting effects that certain cases have on the doctrine,” Procaccini said. “Abortion cases always, on both sides, just contort the doctrine. These gender identity cases, I’m afraid, are starting to do the same thing. Again, I think there are real rule of law problems with that—the doctrine should be consistent across social areas.”
Meanwhile, Berk v. Choy will revisit the Erie doctrine, which requires federal courts hearing state-law claims to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. The dispute focuses on whether Delaware’s requirement for an expert affidavit in medical malpractice cases applies in federal court. “Those who have taken civil procedure know that the key question in all of these Erie cases these days is whether the state law conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or not,” Fitzpatrick noted. “So the real question, the hard question is, does this law conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?”
Beyond the merits docket, the Supreme Court’s "shadow docket" has become a lightning rod for criticism and a subject of urgent academic debate. Traditionally reserved for last-minute stays or procedural extensions, the shadow docket now routinely addresses substantive disputes before full briefing or oral argument. Fitzpatrick highlighted its growing influence: “The Supreme Court does as much, if not more, of its work every year now on the shadow or orders docket as it does on the merits docket. It’s consuming a lot of time and a lot of energy, and it’s a big deal.”
According to a new report by Court Accountability, the shadow docket has been especially consequential for the Trump administration. The group analyzed hundreds of cases and found that while challengers to Trump prevailed in about 60% of district court orders and 59% of circuit court orders, Trump won a staggering 90% of Supreme Court rulings and temporary orders—most from the shadow docket. “The justices have left us to guess why they are letting Trump persist in his lawlessness across a wide range of issues from immigration to federal spending, while leaving lower courts without guidance on how to carry out the high court’s unexplained orders,” the report said. The organization called for reforms to “stop the Supreme Court’s abuse of its outsized power to abase itself before an anti-constitutional executive.”
Public skepticism matches these concerns. According to a Gallup poll published this month, 51% of Americans distrust the Supreme Court and 43% believe it is "too conservative." A 2024 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that nearly 70% of U.S. voters support term limits for justices, with support spanning party lines. Justice Elena Kagan herself acknowledged the need for reform, saying, “It seems like a good idea in terms of ensuring that people have confidence that we’re doing exactly that.”
As the Supreme Court embarks on a term filled with historic questions, the outcome of its decisions—and the way it reaches them—will be closely watched not just by legal scholars and advocates, but by a public eager for transparency, accountability, and renewed faith in the nation’s highest court.