The Supreme Court is scheduled to issue decisions in four pivotal cases on its final day of the 2025-26 term, addressing issues with significant implications for immigration policy, the participation of transgender athletes in women's sports, and campaign finance regulations.
Birthright Citizenship Challenge
The most closely watched case involves a challenge to an executive order that sought to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants and foreign tourists. President Trump has expressed skepticism about the court ruling in his favor on this matter, following earlier setbacks on his reciprocal tariff regime.
The executive order's proponents argue that the current policy incentivizes illegal immigration by allowing foreign nationals to enter the U.S. with the expectation that their children will automatically become citizens. Conversely, opponents contend that the order violates the 14th Amendment's explicit statement that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens.
The legal challenge was brought by three individuals: a Honduran asylum applicant, a Taiwanese citizen who gave birth while on a student visa, and a Brazilian applicant for permanent residency. They assert that the order unlawfully denied citizenship and its associated benefits to their children.
Transgender Athletes in Women's Sports
Another significant case concerns the constitutionality of state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that aim to restrict participation in women's sports to biological females. Approximately half of U.S. states have enacted similar legislation.
During oral arguments, the Supreme Court appeared inclined to allow states to determine their own policies. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the court's role in imposing a nationwide rule when states are divided on the issue. The Idaho law prohibits transgender women from competing on female sports teams in state-funded institutions, while West Virginia's law permits biological males, including transgender women, to compete only in men's or co-ed teams.
Lower courts had previously placed injunctions on both states' laws while the Supreme Court considered the case. The justices heard arguments for both laws concurrently and may issue separate opinions.
Campaign Finance Regulations
The court will also rule on the constitutionality of federal limits on coordinated campaign spending between official party committees and individual candidates. A ruling striking down these limits could significantly benefit Republicans, who currently hold a substantial financial advantage in the 2026 election cycle.
According to recent Federal Election Commission filings, the Republican National Committee has over $125 million in cash on hand, compared to the Democratic National Committee's approximately $14.8 million.
Following the release of these remaining opinions, the Supreme Court will recess until October 5. During the recess, the justices will continue to address motions and select cases for the 2026-27 term.