REPORT: Twenty Decisions in Two Weeks — the Supreme Court Under End-of-Term Pressure

Introduction: the countdown has begun — Washington holds its breath

A session's end like a ticking time bomb

In Washington, the end of June feels every year like a military countdown. But this year, the clock beats differently. The United States Supreme Court must hand down roughly twenty rulings by June 30, 2026 — perhaps July 2 if deliberations run long — and several of them could radically transform the country's legal architecture. American journalists now call this the "June boom", and this year the term has never been more fitting. Pressure is at its maximum, the stakes are existential, and the nine justices of the highest court in the land know it better than anyone.

According to NPR, of the 58 cases argued during the October 2025 term, 23 were still pending at the start of June 2026. Since then, a few minor decisions have been handed down — one on firearms and one on criminal law — but the most combustible cases, the most politically charged, the most consequential for Trump's agenda, are still waiting. The opinion days scheduled for June 23, June 25, June 26, and possibly June 30 or July 2 are being watched as rarely before in the Court's recent history.

Trump's agenda in the courtroom

What makes this session's end historic is the density of cases directly tied to Donald Trump's presidency. Birthright citizenship, revocation of temporary protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, dismissals of independent agency officials, mail-in voting, political party financing, rights of transgender athletes — the list is long. It is as if the second Trump presidency decided to submit its entire legislative and executive program to the arbitration of a body the president does not entirely control, despite his three nominations to the Court.

The Boston Globe notes that more than one of these decisions could directly affect the Trump administration's agenda on immigration, electoral law, and presidential powers. It is no accident that Trump himself attended — for the first time in recent history — oral arguments at the Court on April 1, 2026, a presence commentators interpreted as an act of symbolic pressure as much as curiosity.

Birthright citizenship: the case of the century finally reaching its conclusion

A decree against 160 years of jurisprudence

The case of Trump v. Barbara is perhaps the most symbolically charged of this term. On the first day of his second term, Donald Trump signed an executive order prohibiting the issuance of American identity documents to children born on United States soil if their parents were in the country illegally or on a temporary visa. In doing so, he directly challenged the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1868 after the Civil War, which provides that anyone born on American territory is an American citizen. One hundred and sixty years of settled jurisprudence. The mainstream interpretation, shared by constitutional scholars across party lines until the Trump era, is that the amendment applies to everyone, regardless of parents' origin.

Lower court judges who examined the decree unanimously declared it unconstitutional. According to NPR, every court that considered the question concluded it manifestly violated the 14th Amendment. Yet at the April 1, 2026 oral arguments, the signals sent by the Supreme Court majority were themselves unfavorable to Trump: justices both conservative and liberal expressed deep doubts about the decree's legality. SCOTUSblog headlined the day after the hearings: "Supreme Court appears likely to side against Trump on birthright citizenship."

What this ruling concretely implies

If the Court invalidates the decree, it is a major defeat for Trump, even if widely anticipated. If it upholds it, by contrast, more than 250,000 babies a year born in the United States would be denied automatic citizenship, according to figures cited by the Boston Globe. The demographic, social, and human scope would be colossal. Families of legal immigrants who arrived on temporary visas would see children born on American soil deprived of a right they have taken for granted for more than a century. That would be a legal revolution unlike any in the contemporary history of the United States.

The stakes go well beyond Trump himself. This ruling would constitute a constitutional precedent of extraordinary reach. A law professor whose analyses were relayed by NPR on April 2, 2026 noted that during the hearings, both the justices and Solicitor General Sauer seemed to want to avoid a narrow decision — which suggests a broad ruling, directly covering the constitutional question of the decree, rather than a technical workaround. That broad decision, if it comes, will be analyzed as one of the most important in decades.

Lisa Cook at the Fed: when Trump attempts to overturn monetary independence

The attempted removal of a Federal Reserve governor

The case of Trump v. Cook is of a different nature, but of comparable gravity. Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to sit on the board of the Federal Reserve, was targeted by Trump, who sought to dismiss her by accusing her of mortgage fraud — which she categorically denies. The Supreme Court provisionally blocked her removal while the case was under review. At the January 2026 oral arguments, the signals from the justices were predominantly unfavorable to Trump: conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh declared that allowing this dismissal would "weaken, if not destroy, the independence of the Federal Reserve," according to the Boston Globe.

Kavanaugh's statement had considerable resonance in financial circles. The independence of the Fed is one of the central pillars of the American economic system. Markets treat it as an axiom. If the Court opened the door to presidential dismissal of Fed board members without established serious cause, the consequences for the credibility of American monetary policy — and by extension for global markets — would be potentially devastating. Economists and business circles, according to NPR, have expressed significant concerns since the start of this proceeding.

A decision separate from the Slaughter case — and why that matters

The Court distinguished the Cook and Slaughter cases, because the institutional logic differs. The Federal Reserve enjoys a particularly well-entrenched constitutional independence in American tradition, far more than the Federal Trade Commission. Some conservative justices even noted that even if the Court were to give more latitude to the president to dismiss FTC members (the Slaughter case), the Fed might benefit from stronger protections. This is a crucial nuance: the two cases could yield different outcomes, one partially validating presidential powers, the other limiting them.

Newser, on June 17, 2026, noted that the Court appeared inclined to reject the attempt to dismiss Cook. A Trump victory in this case would be all the more remarkable for going against the signals sent during the hearings. But with a 6-3 conservative majority, nothing is definitively excluded. The final outcome, expected within days, will be analyzed closely by central bankers around the world.

Rebecca Slaughter and the FTC: 91 years of precedent at stake

A dismissal resting on a 1935 ruling

The case of Trump v. Slaughter is, in certain respects, even more consequential institutionally than the Cook case. Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), was removed by Trump in March 2025. He had himself nominated her during his first term, making the matter all the more striking. She is contesting her dismissal by invoking a 1935 Supreme Court ruling — Humphrey's Executor v. United States — which established the principle that the president may only remove officials of independent agencies "for cause," meaning for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.

That precedent has been upheld by every successive Supreme Court for 91 years. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had attempted the same thing in 1935, and the Court stopped him cold. NPR recalls that the unanimous Court of the day clearly established that Congress had the right to create independent agencies whose members would be protected from arbitrary presidential removal. If the current Court reverses that precedent, it will give presidents — Trump and all his successors — direct control over dozens of regulatory agencies that were until then supposed to operate outside direct political pressure.

The justices' signals and what they portend

At the December 2025 oral arguments, conservative justices displayed genuine openness to the administration's argument that independent agencies are a constitutional anomaly. According to Axios, the Court appeared more receptive to the idea of allowing the president to dismiss FTC members than those of the Fed. This is where something essential is being decided: if the Court validates Slaughter's dismissal, it structurally alters the balance of power between the executive and independent regulators. Agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, or the National Labor Relations Board could all be affected.

Reason magazine noted on June 18, 2026 that after a quiet day at the Court, the next opinion sessions were scheduled for Tuesday, June 23 and Thursday, June 25. Several observers expect the Slaughter ruling to be handed down in one of those sessions. Anticipation is palpable. Every day that passes without a decision fuels speculation. And in the corridors of Washington agencies, many career officials are watching the news with mounting anxiety.

Temporary Protected Status: 1.3 million people in limbo

A 36-year-old humanitarian program in peril

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is one of the most discreet but most important humanitarian programs in the American immigration system. Created in 1990 by Congress, it allows foreign nationals to reside and work legally in the United States when their home country is ravaged by a natural disaster, armed conflict, or severe humanitarian crisis. Every president since its creation — Republican and Democrat alike — has maintained or expanded the program. Trump wants to dismantle the protections granted to nationals of 13 of the 17 countries currently covered, including Haiti and Syria, which are the subject of the cases Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot.

According to the Boston Globe, the two cases could directly affect up to 1.3 million people from 17 different countries. For Haitians alone — more than 300,000 people who benefited from TPS after the devastating 2010 earthquake — a ruling favorable to Trump would mean immediate exposure to deportation. The newspaper notes that the Boston area is home to one of the largest Haitian communities in the United States, making the decision particularly sensitive for that state. For Syrians, approximately 3,800 individuals would be affected, according to NPR.

The central legal argument: the courts' power to review presidential decisions

The Trump administration's central argument in these cases is formidable in its logic: decisions regarding TPS fall within the president's discretionary power, and courts lack jurisdiction to review them. If the Supreme Court accepts this reading, it would not be ruling directly on the legality of withdrawing TPS, but would strip the plaintiffs of any judicial remedy. Several conservative justices, at the April 2026 oral arguments, appeared to lean toward this interpretation, according to Axios. That would be a procedural victory for Trump, but one with gigantic human consequences.

The stakes extend beyond the directly affected individuals. If the Court validates the idea that presidential decisions on TPS are beyond judicial review, it opens the door to revoking protections for nationals of other countries with no effective recourse. That precedent would extend far beyond Haiti and Syria. Hundreds of thousands of additional people from El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, or other countries in crisis could find themselves in the same precarious situation in the months that follow.

Asylum at the border: where does American territory begin?

The "metering" policy and its legal implications

Another immigration case awaits its resolution: Noem v. Al Otro Lado, which concerns the metering policy — capping the number of asylum seekers admitted daily at official ports of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border. Argued in March 2026, it raises a fundamental legal question: can a person intercepted on the Mexican side of the border, but seeking to reach an official port of entry to request asylum, be considered as physically present on American territory under federal asylum law?

The Trump administration argues that they cannot — and that people stopped before crossing the line cannot file an asylum application. This reading would allow the administration to turn back asylum seekers without subjecting them to the examination procedure required by law, or by the international conventions to which the United States is a signatory. According to Axios, the question is where American jurisdiction begins, and therefore where U.S. legal obligations toward people fleeing persecution or violence commence.

A ruling with global repercussions

If the Court accepts the administration's thesis, it would give future administrations — of whatever political stripe — a powerful tool to circumvent asylum law without formally amending its text. This would not be a change in the law, but an interpretation of its territorial scope that would gut the protection offered to asylum seekers. The United Nations and several international law organizations have expressed concerns about the compatibility of such an interpretation with the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the United States adheres.

This case is less covered by the media than those on citizenship or TPS, but it is no less structurally significant. The right to asylum is one of the cornerstones of international humanitarian law, built in the 1950s to answer the horrors of World War II. The United States long championed it. To see the world's leading power narrow access to this right through a contestable geographical interpretation would be a troubling signal sent to the rest of the world — particularly to authoritarian regimes that closely watch the lines the West accepts to move.

Mail-in voting under fire: the electoral stakes of the coming autumn

Watson v. RNC and the question of late-arriving ballots

The case of Watson v. Republican National Committee is the one getting the least media attention, but its long-term effects on American democracy could be among the most durable. It concerns a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots received up to five days after election day to be counted, provided they were postmarked before the polls closed. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have similar provisions. The Trump administration argues that federal law mandates a single day for elections, which excludes counting any ballot received after that day.

At the March 2026 oral arguments, Mississippi's lawyers noted, according to the Boston Globe, that the White House had produced not a single concrete example of electoral fraud linked to late-arriving ballots. Conservative justices nevertheless seemed to lean toward the federal administration's argument. A ruling in that direction would invalidate the rules of fifteen different jurisdictions, mechanically reducing access to voting for specific categories of voters: those who vote by mail — notably military personnel serving abroad, the elderly, people with disabilities, and residents of underserved rural areas.

The political calendar behind the legal decision

One must name what is obvious: this case falls just months before the November 2026 midterm elections. A ruling favorable to the Trump administration would mechanically limit mail-in voting in key states, to the presumed statistical benefit of the Republican Party. Electoral analysts have noted this — Democrats use mail-in voting at higher rates than Republicans. It is not a coincidence that this case was brought before the Court this year rather than the previous one. The judicial calendar and the electoral calendar intersect here in a particularly transparent way.

The acerbic footnote to this situation, as Axios notes, is that Trump himself has voted by mail in past elections, despite his repeated attacks on that voting method. That incongruous detail says much about the true nature of this offensive: it is not a question of democratic principle — it is a question of partisan calculation. The difference between defending institutions and instrumentalizing them is sometimes thin. Here, it is not thin at all.

Transgender athletes: a ruling with major societal jurisprudential potential

Two consolidated cases, millions of lives touched

The cases of Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., consolidated before the Supreme Court, raise a question that goes well beyond sports: can states ban transgender athletes from participating in school and university athletic competitions on teams matching their gender identity, without violating the 14th Amendment and Title IX of the Education Act? Both cases involve young transgender women — Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia and Lindsay Hecox in Idaho — whose states have passed laws excluding them from women's teams at public institutions.

At the January 2026 oral arguments, which ran more than three hours, at least five justices — out of nine — appeared favorable to upholding these bans, according to the Trevor Project and the BBC. In a 6-3 conservative majority Court, that will likely be enough for a majority. The remaining question is that of the ruling's scope: will it be limited to the specific cases of public elementary and secondary schools, or will it establish a general principle applicable to all school and university athletic competitions nationwide?

The political stakes beyond the playing field

This ruling arrives in a context where more than 27 American states have passed similar laws banning transgender athletes from competing on teams corresponding to their gender identity. A Supreme Court ruling validating these laws would provide them with a near-definitive constitutional shield. Conversely, a ruling invalidating them would put those states in a legally difficult position. It is unlikely the conservative majority Court will adopt that second option — the signals from the oral arguments point clearly in the opposite direction.

Beyond sports, this ruling will have an impact on how young transgender people experience their schooling in the United States. School sports is not just an extracurricular activity — it is a vector of belonging, social integration, and identity formation. Exclusion from this sphere is, for these young people, an exclusion from the school community as a whole. Organizations like the Trevor Project have published data showing that this type of exclusion significantly increases the risk of depression and suicidal behavior among transgender adolescents. The Court's ruling will not only be legal. It will also be, profoundly, human.

Campaign finance: party money and democracy for sale

NRSC v. FEC and unlimited coordination

The case of NRSC v. FEC (National Republican Senatorial Committee versus the Federal Election Commission) is perhaps the one least covered by the press, but whose long-term effects on American democracy could be among the most lasting. It concerns a legal limitation dating from 2001: political parties may not spend funds in direct coordination with candidates beyond a certain cap. The Republicans, with Vice President J.D. Vance as the central figure of the challenge, argue that this limitation violates the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of expression.

The argument is familiar: coordinating an expenditure is a form of political expression, and limiting that expression means limiting freedom. The Roberts Court has already considerably loosened campaign finance law since the Citizens United ruling of 2010, which opened the floodgates to super PACs. But even in this context, Justice Sonia Sotomayor had stated at the December 2025 oral arguments, according to the Boston Globe: "Every time we interfere with Congress's design, we make things worse." Both liberal justices and some conservatives seemed skeptical about the need to push campaign finance liberalization further still.

What this would change in practice

If the Court eliminates coordinated spending limits, major donors would have even more direct access to candidates through their official parties, rather than being constrained to go through super PACs that must formally operate independently. In practice, this would concentrate more influence in the hands of the wealthiest donors, at the expense of small donors who constitute an important part of Democratic Party fundraising. According to Axios, Democrats have tended to perform better on small individual contributions in recent years — a dynamic that would potentially be counterbalanced by a ruling favorable to Republicans.

The question is not solely partisan. It touches on the very architecture of representative democracy. When parties can coordinate unlimited spending with candidates, candidates become accountable to party financiers rather than to voters. It is a logic of influence that circumvents universal suffrage without formally prohibiting it. And in a system where money already largely defines the contours of public debate, opening the floodgates further is not democratic reform — it is oligarchic drift.

Political pressure on the Court: when the institution must resist power

Trump, the justices, and the line of separation of powers

Since his return to the White House, Trump has not hidden his impatience with the judiciary. He has personally attacked judges who blocked his decrees, floated the possibility of ignoring certain court decisions, and maintained continuous public pressure on the Supreme Court — despite having nominated three of its nine members during his first term: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. These three justices have often voted in a manner favorable to the executive, but not systematically — as Kavanaugh's position in the Cook case illustrates.

Trump's presence in the courtroom on April 1, 2026 for the citizenship oral arguments crystallized this unease. No sitting president had ever attended in person the arguments for a case directly linked to his own agenda. That gesture, interpreted by some as intimidation and by others as a legitimate display of interest, says something fundamental about Trump's conception of the Court: not as an independent arbiter, but as one player among others in the game of power.

A Court between independence and political reality

Yet recent facts show that the Court is not a simple instrument of the executive. The Court has already inflicted a major defeat on Trump this term with the invalidation of his tariffs — a 6-3 decision rendered in February 2026, according to Reuters, which demonstrated that even Republican-nominated justices can reject presidential excesses when they contravene the constitutional text. The citizenship ruling, if it goes as expected, will constitute a second significant defeat.

It is precisely this tension — a Court that sometimes rules for Trump, sometimes against, based on the legal analysis of each case — that is healthy in a democracy. The problem is that the public perception of the Court as a partisan organ has considerably strengthened since 2016. And when an institution loses its credibility of neutrality in public opinion, even its most legally sound decisions are contested by the losing side. It is a vicious circle from which neither the Court nor American democracy emerges unscathed.

Opinion days: the high-tension calendar

June 23, June 25, June 30 — and perhaps July 2

The logistics of end-of-term decisions are themselves an object of fascination for American constitutional law observers. According to data from SCOTUSblog, the next scheduled opinion days are Tuesday, June 23 and Thursday, June 25. The following week should see one or two additional sessions, with a likely final date around June 30 or July 1. Reason magazine reported on June 18, 2026 that the consensus among legal reporters is that the term will end on June 30 or July 1 — an extension that would not be unusual, the Court having finished no earlier than June 27 during the five preceding terms.

The Court's consistent practice is to reserve the most controversial decisions for the very end of term. This is not by caprice: it is a way of minimizing political pressure on the justices during the weeks of deliberation. By handing down an explosive decision on the final day, less time is left for political actors to organize campaigns of intimidation or pressure on ongoing deliberations. It is an institutional wisdom that Trump, visibly, struggles to understand or accept.

The mechanics of opinion writing under pressure

Behind the mystery of deliberations lies a concrete reality: the Supreme Court's justices and their law clerks work in a state of permanent urgency in June. Each decision requires a majority opinion, often one or more concurrences, and often one or more dissents. The more complex the case and the more the positions diverge, the longer the drafting takes. The Cook case, argued in January 2026, is still pending in June — five months after the hearings. As a June 21 analysis of the term's prospects noted, some observers have flagged this long deliberation as a sign that the justices are having difficulty agreeing on the exact scope of the ruling.

Twenty decisions still pending at the end of June, at least six directly linked to Trump's agenda. The schedule is heavy, the time is short, and the minds in the Court's nine chambers are, in all probability, under considerable pressure. The Basin Brief of June 22, 2026 noted that the Court still had 17 decisions to hand down and was moving at pace, with sessions on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday of the same week — an unusual rhythm that testifies to the pressure of the calendar.

What this says about Trump — and about the state of the West

A president testing the limits, a Court holding its own

Taken together, the cases of this session's end draw a coherent portrait of Donald Trump's philosophy of power: maximize executive control over every lever of the state, reduce institutional checks and balances, use courts as instruments of policy, and advance on every front simultaneously to exhaust institutional defenses. This strategy is sometimes called "executive aggrandizement" by political scientists — the deliberate and systematic enlargement of presidential powers at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches.

What the signals from this Supreme Court show is that even an institution with a 6-3 conservative majority, composed largely of justices nominated by Republican presidents, is not entirely reducible to a partisan instrument. The defeat on tariffs, the doubts on citizenship, the reservations on Cook — all of this testifies that the culture of the rule of law survives, at least partially, political pressures. That is reassuring. But history teaches us that this culture only survives if it is actively defended — by justices, by journalists, by citizens.

The West watches — and what it sees matters

This judicial sequence is not exclusively American. It is being watched in every capital of the world, notably by the adversaries of the liberal Western order — Beijing, Moscow, Tehran. Every time American institutions hold firm against the pressures of an authoritarian executive, it is a positive signal for all democracies fighting for their survival. Every time these institutions yield, it is a negative signal — and an invitation for the world's autocrats to push their own limits a little further. What is happening at the American Supreme Court in this late June 2026 is not just American constitutional law. It is geopolitics.

Ukraine, which has fought Russian aggression since 2022 with a courage history will remember, needs a West that believes in its own institutions. Trump's America is a complex partner — useful on some defense issues, dangerous on others because of its institutional volatility. The Supreme Court, in this landscape, represents the anchor: the institution that says no when the executive goes too far. Its role, this late June, is crucial not only for Americans, but for all those who look at the West and wonder whether it is still standing.

The legacy of this session: decisions that will define a decade

A term as a pivot of American constitutional history

With the perspective that a few weeks allow, the October 2025 term of the Supreme Court seems likely to feature in American constitutional history textbooks. The tariffs ruling has already invalidated a major presidential claim. The anticipated citizenship ruling could confirm or invalidate a century and a half of constitutional law. The rulings on Slaughter and Cook will redraw the contours of presidential power over independent agencies — perhaps for the next fifty years. The one on TPS will determine whether courts can control presidential discretion over humanitarian immigration.

Each of these decisions, taken alone, would already be a major ruling in any other session. Gathered in a single term, they form a block of jurisprudence of exceptional density. It will take years for legal scholars, law professors, and government officials to measure all their implications. And these implications will not be abstract: they will translate into the concrete lives of millions of Americans — those born on U.S. territory to immigrant parents, those who benefit from TPS, those who vote by mail, those who work in independent regulatory agencies.

The Court as the last bulwark — or as a mirror of its time

It is tempting to see the Supreme Court as American democracy's last bulwark. That view is partially correct, but it is also dangerous if it leads to excessive reliance on nine unelected justices to maintain democratic safeguards. Justices are human beings, with their philosophical preferences, their blind spots, their ambitions, and their loyalties. What truly defends democracy is a living civic culture, plural institutions, a free press — and citizens who understand what is at stake when these institutions are under pressure.

What the 2026 session's end reveals, at bottom, is that the United States is living through a moment of intense constitutional tension. Not a crisis — the system is still functioning, justices sit, lawyers argue, decisions are handed down. But a tension. That of an executive systematically testing limits, a Court that must continually redefine those limits, and a divided society with disagreements about what those limits should be. The outcome of this judicial standoff, made public in the coming days, will say much about the true state of American democracy in 2026.

Conclusion: twenty decisions, a civilization put to the test

The historic verdict that approaches

In the coming days, the United States Supreme Court will hand down decisions that will constitute, for some of them, lasting markers in American constitutional history. Whether ruling on birthright citizenship, on the independence of the Federal Reserve, on the fate of hundreds of thousands of TPS-protected immigrants, or on the ability of states to exclude young transgender students from school sports — each of these decisions will carry concrete and lasting effects on the lives of millions of people. Nothing that will be announced from June 23, 2026 onward will be trivial.

Trump has submitted to the Supreme Court an ambitious and contested program. Some of his positions will be validated — notably on the power to dismiss independent agency members. Others will be invalidated — notably on citizenship. This mixed result is, in a sense, proof that the system works: a determined executive advancing, courts arbitrating, a Constitution serving as the reference. It is noisy, sometimes disorderly, often uncomfortable. But that is precisely what a living democracy means.

What we will remember from these two weeks

What this session's end teaches us, at bottom, is that institutions matter. Not men alone, not parties, not polls — institutions. The Supreme Court, despite its internal tensions and ideological fault lines, is still capable of resisting the pressures of an expansionist executive. That is good news. But this resistance is not guaranteed forever: it depends on the quality of the justices, on the strength of legal culture, and on civic vigilance. All things that can deteriorate if taken for granted.

Twenty decisions in two weeks. For many Americans, these will be twenty pieces of news from a distant institution in a marble building in Washington. For others — the Haitian immigrants of Boston, the young transgender people of Idaho, the voting rights activists of Mississippi — these will be twenty verdicts on their lives, their future, their belonging to the national community. It is there, in the distance between legal abstraction and human reality, that the true stakes of these extraordinary weeks are genuinely being decided.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary sources

Boston Globe — What's left on the Supreme Court's docket this term (Kaitlin Lewis) — June 17, 2026

NPR — The Supreme Court is in its final stretch this term. Here are the major cases left (Nina Totenberg) — June 9, 2026

Newser — SCOTUS Could Overturn 91-Year Precedent: Rulings expected on birthright citizenship, agency independence, immigration powers (Arden Dier) — June 17, 2026

Secondary sources

Axios — Supreme Court's final cases loom over Trump's immigration, election hopes (Avery Lotz) — June 10, 2026

The Guardian — Supreme Court to release opinions with several high-stakes rulings to come including birthright citizenship — June 18, 2026

SCOTUSblog — Supreme Court appears likely to side against Trump on birthright citizenship — April 1, 2026

Reason Magazine — A Slow Thursday At The Court — June 18, 2026

The Basin Brief — SCOTUS Enters the Final Stretch With 17 Rulings Left — June 22, 2026