Crime & Law
Supreme Court Expected to Hand Down Rulings on Birthright Citizenship, Presidential Power and More
The U.S. Supreme Court’s annual “June boom” is about to begin, bringing an end to months of speculation.
The justices are poised to hand down decisions in several landmark cases in the weeks ahead. Their rulings could have sweeping implications for birthright citizenship, presidential power, transgender athletes and more.
Here’s what to watch for:
Birthright Citizenship
One of the most closely watched cases has been Trump v. Barbara, which scrutinizes an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day of this term in office.
Executive Order 14160 targeted the citizenship status of children born in the U.S. to unauthorized immigrant parents or to parents living in the U.S. temporarily.
“The Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” the order reads. “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
The order was subsequently blocked in multiple federal courts, and the Supreme Court heard arguments in early April from the Trump administration and the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing “Barbara” — the pseudonym of a Honduran asylum seeker who was scheduled to give birth in October 2025.
David Franklin, a law professor at DePaul University and a former law clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who also previously served as Illinois solicitor general, said he expects the Supreme Court to reject the Trump administration’s argument.
“When I teach constitutional law, I tell my students that there are six building blocks of constitutional law — text, precedent, structure, history, purpose and consequences,” Franklin said. “Without going into detail, on all six of those building blocks, this birthright citizenship executive (order) is a dead-bang loser, and I think even this Supreme Court will see through it.”
Firing Power
More than 90 years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed Congress’ right to create multi-member independent agencies in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. These are agencies like the Federal Trade Commission that exist inside the executive branch but operate outside of the president’s direct authority.
Now, the court is considering whether the president can freely fire the heads of these agencies in Trump v. Slaughter.
In March, Trump dismissed a Democratic member of the FTC, Rebecca Slaughter, on the basis that keeping her on the commission would be “inconsistent” with his administration’s priorities. Slaughter filed her case, arguing the administration failed to meet any of the legal grounds for removal — inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
Franklin said the administration’s argument rests on the so-called unitary executive theory made popular by former Justice Antonin Scalia.
“(The unitary executive) is basically this notion that everybody who exercises any part of the executive power has to work in subordination to the president,” Franklin said. “I think that idea has pretty dubious historical and textual bases, but it has very much carried the day with the current court. They are following in Scalia’s footsteps.”
Michael Scodro, a partner and co-head of the Supreme Court and appellate practice at Mayer Brown LLP, and a former law clerk to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, said he expects the justices to rule in Trump’s favor.
“I think that the court is very likely to grant the president this authority of removal without cause,” Scodro said. “That will affect more than a dozen federal agencies.”
Transgender Athletes
The Supreme Court will also determine whether state laws banning the participation of transgender athletes in sports violate Title IX, a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in education and programs that receive federal funding.
In Little v. Hecox, Idaho Gov. Brad Little is defending his state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bans transgender women and girls from participating in women’s sports outright, against Lindsay Hecox, a transgender woman who was barred from trying out for the Boise State University track team.
In West Virginia v. B.P.J, state officials are defending the Save Women’s Sports Act, which bars transgender women and girls from participating in women’s sports teams in public secondary schools and universities, against Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 15-year-old trans high school student looking to join the girls track team.
Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago and former law clerk to Justice William Brennan Jr., said he expects the court to side with Little and West Virginia because of the advantage trans women have in women’s athletics.
“For a trans woman to be able to play in women’s sports, it gives her an advantage that other women do not have,” Stone said. “I can imagine a court writing an opinion that limits itself only to the athletic context, only because of that particular factor.”
Campaign Finance
The justices will also reexamine a decision the Supreme Court made 25 years ago, which limited how much party campaign committees can spend in coordination with a particular candidate running for Congress or the White House.
In FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, the Supreme Court enacted limits on coordinated spending, arguing they were necessary to limit the amount large donors could route through organizations like the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee to be used however a specific candidate wants.
“The Republican committee has challenged federal limits on the degree to which there can be this spending and coordination between the candidate and the committee,” Scodro said. “And as we’ve seen in a number of cases, the claim is that spending for a campaign is speech protected by the First Amendment, so the theory is that these limits are themselves violations of the First Amendment free speech rights.”
A potential decision could have ramifications for how the parties spend money during the upcoming midterm elections.
