The United States Supreme Court’s 2025–26 term, which kicked off on October 6, 2025, has quickly become one of the most closely watched in recent memory, with a docket brimming with cases that could reshape American law and society. As the justices settle in for arguments that will stretch into the summer of 2026, their decisions are set to touch on everything from presidential power and voting rights to the boundaries of free speech and the future of women’s sports.
Among the headline cases is Learning Resources v. Trump, a legal showdown over whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 gives the president the authority to slap tariffs on foreign imports. This case has its roots in a flurry of executive orders issued by President Donald Trump in February and April 2025, which imposed sweeping tariffs on products from nearly every country. According to Britannica, Trump argued that mounting trade deficits and the influx of opioids constituted national emergencies, justifying the tariffs under IEEPA. The orders included so-called "trafficking tariffs" on Canada, Mexico, and China for failing to curb illicit drugs and on Mexico for "unlawful migration," as well as reciprocal tariffs of up to 50 percent on countries worldwide.
The legal pushback was swift. Two Illinois-based educational toy companies, Learning Resources, Inc. and hand2mind, Inc., whose products are manufactured abroad, filed suit in federal court, arguing that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. They were soon joined by small businesses and a coalition of 12 states. The district court sided with the plaintiffs, issuing a preliminary injunction, and the Court of International Trade and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit followed suit, rejecting Trump’s appeal. With the legal stakes mounting, the Supreme Court granted an expedited review, hearing oral arguments on November 5, 2025.
During those arguments, the justices grilled both sides. Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed the government’s lawyer: "Can you point to any other place in the Code [IEEPA] or any other time in history where that phrase…‘regulate importation’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?" Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito noted the unique breadth of emergency powers statutes, asking, "Isn’t that the very nature of an emergency?" Despite some justices questioning the limits of presidential power, others, like Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wondered aloud whether it made sense for the law to allow a president to halt trade entirely but not impose even a modest tariff.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between Congress and the presidency, especially in times of crisis. As Britannica notes, the major questions doctrine looms large, with several justices expressing concern that Trump’s interpretation of IEEPA could violate the principle that Congress must clearly delegate such significant authority.
Voting rights are also on the docket in Louisiana v. Callais, argued on October 15, 2025. At issue is whether Louisiana’s creation of a second Black-majority congressional district, ordered in 2024 to address the dilution of Black voting power, violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs argue that the move amounts to racial gerrymandering against non-Black citizens, while the state is urging the Court to reevaluate long-standing voting rights precedents. The Supreme Court’s own decision in Allen v. Milligan (2023), which struck down a similar map in Alabama, is being hotly debated as a precedent.
Justice Elena Kagan made her position clear during oral arguments, stating, "What Section 2 does is to say, where…African Americans…are not being given the same voting opportunities as white people are, then a remedy is appropriate." But the conservative justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether the Alabama case was truly analogous. Justice Kavanaugh raised the issue of whether race-based remedies should be indefinite, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson countered that Section 2 is simply a measure to determine when a remedy is needed, not a remedy itself.
The background is as complex as the arguments. After the 2020 census, only one of Louisiana’s six congressional districts had a Black majority, despite one-third of the state’s population being Black. A federal court ordered a second Black-majority district, but another court later ruled this was unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The Supreme Court’s inability to reach a decision by June 2025 led to a rescheduling for this term, with the potential to redefine how race can be considered in drawing voting districts nationwide.
Another high-profile case, Trump v. Slaughter, centers on the firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Trump dismissed Slaughter at the start of his second term, not for cause but because her priorities didn’t align with his administration. Slaughter challenged her removal, citing the Federal Trade Commission Act, which, as interpreted for 90 years, allows removal only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
The solicitor general, representing Trump, argued that the precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) is outdated and has been "gutted and refurbished" by subsequent rulings. The counsel for Slaughter fired back, saying, "If [Trump’s legal team is] right, all three branches of government have been wrong from the start." The justices were divided, with conservatives expressing concern about unaccountable agencies and liberals warning that unchecked presidential power could threaten the separation of powers. Justice Elena Kagan asked pointedly, "Isn’t it problematic…that what this is going to amount to at the end of the day is putting not only all executive power in the President but an incredible amount of legislative [or] rulemaking power and judging in the President’s hands?"
Meanwhile, the Court is also set to hear Little v. Hecox in January 2026, a challenge to Idaho’s law barring transgender girls and women from female sports teams. Plaintiffs, including Lindsay Hecox, argue that the law violates Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. Idaho, for its part, maintains that the law is necessary to ensure fairness in women’s sports. The outcome could set a national precedent on the rights of transgender athletes in school sports.
With 39 cases already accepted for argument and more petitions under review, the Supreme Court’s current term is shaping up to be a defining moment for American law. The justices’ decisions in these cases will not only settle the specific disputes before them but also send ripples through the legal and political landscape for years to come. As the country waits for these rulings, the stakes could hardly be higher.