Crime & Law
Supreme Court Begins New Term. From LGBTQ Rights to Executive Power, Here’s What’s on the Agenda
The U.S. Supreme Court’s new term kicked off last week with culture-war topics and presidential authority on the docket.
Topics on the agenda include free speech, LGBTQ rights, tariffs and broad executive power. The justices have 39 cases on their regular docket and have already sifted through nearly 30 cases related to President Donald Trump on the so-called shadow docket.
Here’s what to watch for:
Trump v. Slaughter
The court is reexamining a 90-year-old precedent that prevents presidents from firing heads of independent federal agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Federal Reserve, without cause. Trump’s legal counsel argues those restrictions violate the Constitution’s vesting of executive power.
In September, the Supreme Court did allow Trump to fire Rebecca Slaughter, the head of the FCC, for the time being. They’ll hear oral arguments in December.
“This goes back to what proponents of the Trump administration believe is unitary executive theory,” said John Giokaris, an attorney at the law firm Rock Fusco & Connelly and a member of the Federalist Society. “Under the president’s executive authority, he can fire pretty much anyone from any administrative agency at will.”
Similarly, Trump wants to remove Lisa Cook, who serves on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Arguments on Cook will be heard in January.
DePaul University associate professor of law David Franklin is confident the court will overrule the longstanding unitary executive opinion, but thinks the Supreme Court sees the Federal Reserve differently from other federal agencies.
“The Supreme Court has gotten a brief from every living former Fed chair, Republican and Democrat, telling the court that in countries that have independent central banks where the president removes that independence, you get runaway inflation and economic crisis,” Franklin said.
Chiles v. Salazar
This case centers on a Colorado state law that bans licensed therapists from practicing so-called conversion therapy on minors, citing research showing the practice can cause severe psychological harm and even double the risk of suicide.
A Christian therapist named Kaley Chiles sued, arguing the ban violates her First Amendment right to free speech.
“There are some very strange things about this case,” said Carolyn Shapiro, law professor and co-director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States at Chicago-Kent College of Law. “She’s actually said she doesn’t want to practice conversion therapy and the state of Colorado said they are not going to enforce this law against her. So, one might wonder what this case is doing in the Supreme Court at all.”
Shapiro compared the case to 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, also out of Colorado, which involved a web designer who didn’t want to build wedding websites for same-sex couples. The court ruled in favor of the designer, citing free speech.
Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
The court is expected to weigh in on two cases involving transgender athletes. Both cases weigh whether Title IX, the federal law banning gender-based discrimination in schools, protects transgender girls’ rights to compete in women’s sports.
Idaho and West Virginia both passed laws banning transgender girls from women’s sports teams and competitions, arguing fairness and safety for cisgender girls.
LGBTQ rights advocates argue the bans discriminate based on gender identity.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs is being challenged.
The IEEPA is a statute that delegates to the president the ability to declare a national emergency, and in the case of national emergency, to regulate the importation of goods from other countries.
Franklin said a question at the heart of this case is: When the statute speaks to the president’s authority to regulate the importation of goods from other countries, is that a blanket authorization for tariffs? An appeals court said no.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump originates from when two family-owned educational supply companies, Learning Resources and hand2mind, sued over tariffs implemented by Trump.
Some of the president’s sweeping tariffs on international imports reached more than 145% and drove the companies’ import costs from $2.3 million in 2024 to more than $100 million in 2025.
For the court to rule in favor of Trump, the majority would have to decide whether the president has carte blanche to determine how the statute applies, Shapiro explained, and that it would be a “strange” reading of the IEEPA to allow for tariffs.
“It doesn’t talk about tariffs. It doesn’t talk about taxes. It talks about regulation,” Shapiro said. “Having said that, I don’t know what they’re (the Supreme Court) going to do. They have been deferential to the president in ways that I find extremely surprising and disturbing.”
