Pending Supreme Court cases this term, October Term 2025, cover transgender athlete bans, birthright citizenship, concealed carry on private property, geofence warrants, presidential power to fire agency commissioners, emergency tariffs, campaign finance limits, compassionate release, and the death penalty. Oral arguments run from October through April, and most opinions will be released between May and early July 2026.
Transgender Athletes and Birthright Citizenship
Two cases argued in January 2026 ask whether state laws barring transgender girls and women from female sports teams can stand. In Little v. Hecox, the justices are reviewing an Idaho law that the Ninth Circuit struck down under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. West Virginia v. B.P.J. involves a similar West Virginia law that the Fourth Circuit held violates Title IX, the federal statute prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. The decisions are expected to produce the first nationwide standard for how courts evaluate these restrictions.
Trump v. Barbara challenges Executive Order 14,160, which directed federal agencies to stop recognizing U.S. citizenship for children born in the country if neither parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Multiple federal courts blocked the order, citing the Citizenship Clause and the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to virtually all children born on U.S. soil.1Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. CASA, Inc. The Court has already acted on emergency applications involving stays of the injunctions, and the underlying question of whether the executive branch can redefine birthright citizenship is still pending.
Firearms Cases After Rahimi
Last term’s United States v. Rahimi upheld the federal ban on gun possession by people under domestic violence restraining orders but left related questions open.2Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Rahimi Two cases this term pick up where it left off.
Wolford v. Lopez tests a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a licensed concealed carry permit holder to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission. The question is whether a state can effectively prohibit permitted concealed carry across most commercial spaces by requiring affirmative consent instead of posted notice.
United States v. Hemani addresses the federal law banning firearm possession by anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” After Rahimi approved historically grounded disarmament of dangerous individuals, the justices must decide whether drug users fit within that tradition.
Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment
Chatrie v. United States gives the Court its first chance to rule on geofence warrants. These warrants ask Google or other tech companies to identify every device present within a defined geographic area during a specific time window, then narrow the pool. Unlike a traditional warrant targeting a known suspect, a geofence warrant sweeps up data from everyone nearby. The 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States required a warrant for historical cell-site location data, but geofence warrants push further by targeting a location rather than a person. The ruling could reshape investigations anywhere with significant foot traffic.
Executive Power, Agency Independence, and Tariffs
Trump v. Slaughter asks whether the statutory for-cause protection shielding Federal Trade Commission members from presidential removal violates the separation of powers. A ruling against those protections could effectively overrule Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 decision that has supported the structure of independent regulatory agencies for nearly a century. The ripple effects would reach every agency whose leaders enjoy for-cause removal protection, including the Federal Reserve and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The decision carries major implications for trade policy and for the scope of emergency presidential powers more broadly.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management targets the Affordable Care Act’s preventive-care coverage requirements, arguing that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is structured in a way that violates the Appointments Clause. If the Court agrees, insurers could stop covering dozens of preventive screenings and treatments that are currently free to patients.
These cases arrive after last term’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled Chevron deference and now requires courts to independently interpret federal statutes rather than defer to agency readings of ambiguous laws.3Supreme Court of the United States. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo This term’s agency cases are early tests of what the post-Chevron landscape looks like in practice.
Campaign Finance and Redistricting
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission challenges the federal caps on coordinated spending between political parties and their candidates, arguing that the limits in 52 U.S.C. ยง 30116 violate the First Amendment.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC Chapter 103 – Enforcement of Voting Rights A ruling striking the caps down would change how parties fund campaigns and could blur the line between independent and coordinated political spending.
On the emergency docket, Alabama is seeking a stay of a district court ruling that rejected the congressional map the state adopted in 2023. That map grew out of the Court’s 2023 ruling in Allen v. Milligan, which required Alabama to draw an additional majority-Black congressional district under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits voting practices that result in denial of the right to vote on account of race.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC Chapter 103 – Enforcement of Voting Rights
Sentencing and the Death Penalty
Two companion cases argued in November 2025, Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States, address when federal judges can reduce a prisoner’s sentence under the compassionate release statute. The question is whether judges can treat the sentencing disparities created by the First Step Act, which changed penalties going forward but left many people serving sentences imposed under harsher rules, as “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a reduction. If the Court says yes, thousands of federal inmates could become eligible for relief.
Hamm v. Smith involves how courts should evaluate multiple IQ test scores when deciding whether a defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia. IQ scores naturally fluctuate across tests, and the method courts use to weigh them can determine whether a defendant lives or dies.
The Emergency Docket
Beyond cases that go through full briefing and oral argument, the Court handles a large volume of emergency applications, often called the shadow docket. These are requests for immediate action, such as staying a lower court order or blocking a law from taking effect while litigation continues. The Court usually resolves them with limited briefing, no oral argument, and unsigned orders that say little about the reasoning.
The emergency docket has been especially active this term. Pending applications include challenges to mifepristone access after the Fifth Circuit restricted telemedicine prescribing and mail delivery of the drug, along with the Alabama redistricting stays. Earlier in the term, the Court granted DOGE access to Social Security Administration records over objections that the access violated federal privacy laws, and it shielded DOGE’s internal records from a public records lawsuit. These rulings can carry enormous practical consequences even though they lack the formal precedential weight of a merits opinion.
When the Court grants a stay, the lower court’s ruling is paused until the justices resolve the case on the merits or the stay expires. Without a stay, the lower court’s decision stays in effect during the appeal.5Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 8 – Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal
When Decisions Will Come and How to Follow Them
Opinions for October Term 2025 will be released on a rolling basis, with the heaviest concentration in May, June, and early July 2026. The Court does not announce in advance when a particular opinion will drop, so the final weeks of the term tend to produce a rapid sequence of major rulings. For cases argued early in the term that still lack opinions by spring, the delay sometimes signals internal disagreement among the justices rather than any procedural issue.
The Court publishes its argument calendar on supremecourt.gov, listing which cases will be heard during each sitting from October through April.6Supreme Court of the United States. Calendars and Lists Order lists, posted on Mondays when the Court is in session, reveal which new petitions have been granted or denied. The Court also live-streams audio of every oral argument and posts full transcripts the same afternoon.7Supreme Court of the United States. Oral Arguments