2025-2026 U.S. Supreme Court Term: Summary of Key Decisions and Implications for States

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2025-2026 term featured a number of significant decisions affecting state and territorial governments. The Court issued approximately 68 decisions, along with additional orders on its emergency docket, addressing questions involving presidential and executive authority, federalism, elections, immigration, law enforcement, and individual constitutional rights.

The Fifth Circuit was the source of 11 cases decided by the Court-the most of any federal circuit-followed by nine from the Fourth Circuit. Nine cases reached the Court from state courts and federal district courts.

Key decisions impacting state and territorial governments and other major topics from the term include the following.

Executive Authority and Separation of Powers

The Court addressed several significant questions involving presidential power, the limits of executive authority, and separation-of-powers principles across both its merits and emergency dockets.

• Birthright Citizenship. In Trump v. Barbara, the Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and therefore citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
• Tariff Authority. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.
• Presidential Removal Authority for Independent Agencies. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court held that statutory restrictions limiting the President's ability to remove Federal Trade Commission commissioners violate separation-of-powers principles.
• Presidential Removal Authority for Federal Reserve. In Trump v. Cook, the Court denied the government's request to allow the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to take effect while litigation over her attempted removal continues.
• National Guard Authority. In Trump v. Illinois, the Court denied the federal government's emergency application to stay lower-court relief barring the deployment of federalized National Guard personnel in Illinois. The Court concluded, at this preliminary stage, that "regular forces" in 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3) likely refers to the regular U.S. military and that the government had not shown that the statutory requirements for deploying the Guard were satisfied.

Voting and Elections

The Court addressed several significant questions involving federal election administration, campaign finance, congressional redistricting, and who may challenge election rules in federal court.

• Mail-In Ballots. In Watson v. R.N.C., the Court held that federal Election Day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later, concluding that federal law does not require ballots to be received by Election Day.
• Campaign Finance. In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Court held that federal limits on political parties' coordinated campaign spending with candidates violate the First Amendment.
• Race and Congressional Redistricting. In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court held that because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority congressional district, the state lacked a compelling interest for its use of race in drawing the district, rendering the map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
• Election Law Challenges. In Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the Court held that a congressional candidate had standing to challenge state rules governing the counting of ballots in his election.

Sex-Based Classifications and Constitutional Rights

The Court addressed significant questions involving LGBTQ+ rights, First Amendment protections, and sex-based classifications in education and athletics.

• Conversion Therapy and Free Speech. In Chiles v. Salazar, the Court held that Colorado's ban on conversion therapy, as applied to Chiles' talk therapy, regulated speech based on its content and viewpoint and that the lower courts erred by failing to apply the appropriate level of First Amendment scrutiny.
• Transgender Athletes. In West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, the Court held that Title IX permits schools to maintain separate male and female athletic teams based on biological sex and that West Virginia and Idaho did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by limiting participation on female athletic teams based on sex.

Second Amendment

The Court addressed significant questions concerning the constitutional limits on federal and state firearm regulations.

• Concealed Carry on Private Property Open to the Public. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court held that Hawaii's law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner's express authorization violated the Second Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Gun Possession and Drug Use. In United States v. Hemani, the Court held that the government's prosecution of Hemani under the federal prohibition on firearm possession by an unlawful user of a controlled substance was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The Court concluded that the Second Amendment bars the federal government from automatically stripping firearm rights from a person based solely on regular unlawful drug use without a showing of incapacitation or dangerousness.

Immigration

The Court addressed several significant questions involving asylum eligibility, judicial review of immigration decisions, and the federal government's authority over Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

• Asylum Eligibility and Judicial Review. In Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, the Court held that courts must apply the substantial-evidence standard when reviewing the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination of whether established facts rise to the level of "persecution" for purposes of asylum.
• Access to Asylum at the Border. In Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not entitle individuals who remain outside the United States to apply for asylum or require immigration officials to inspect them before they cross the border into the United States.
• Temporary Protected Status. In Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, the Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of nonconstitutional challenges to the Secretary of Homeland Security's determinations regarding TPS designations. The decisions allowed the administration to proceed with terminating TPS protections for affected Syrian and Haitian nationals.

Fourth Amendment and Law Enforcement

The Court addressed several significant questions involving the Fourth Amendment and the scope of law enforcement authority.

• Warrantless Entry and Emergency Assistance. In Case v. Montana, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits police officers to enter a home without a warrant when they have an "objectively reasonable basis for believing" that someone inside needs emergency assistance.
• Digital Privacy and Geofence Warrants. In Chatrie v. United States, the Court held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it obtains an individual's cellphone location data from Google through a geofence warrant because individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cellphone location information. The Court remanded the case for further consideration of whether the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Additional Cases of State Interest

The Court also decided several cases with implications for state officials and entities, including decisions addressing individual liability, state sovereign immunity, access to federal courts, and standing to challenge state investigative actions.

• Individual Liability Under Religious Freedom Laws. In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, the Court held that state employees cannot be held personally liable for damages in their individual capacities under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) unless they personally and knowingly consented to such liability. Because the individual prison officials in Landor had not done so, the plaintiff could not pursue damages against them personally under RLUIPA.
• State Sovereign Immunity. In Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, the Court held that the New Jersey Transit Corporation is not an arm of the State of New Jersey and therefore is not entitled to share in the State's interstate sovereign immunity.
• Removal of State-Law Claims to Federal Court. In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, the Court held that Chevron plausibly alleged a sufficient connection between the conduct challenged in the lawsuit and its work for the federal government to satisfy the federal officer removal statute. The decision allows Chevron to remove the state-law claims against it from state to federal court.
• Standing to Challenge State Investigative Demands. In First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, the Court held that an organization had standing to challenge a subpoena issued by the New Jersey Attorney General seeking documents and donor information because the subpoena caused a present injury to the organization's First Amendment associational rights.

NGA holds monthly briefings for Governors' legal counsel. Please reach out to Lauren Dedon ([email protected]) for additional information.