The upcoming term for the Supreme Court will focus on topics like male participation in women’s sports, race-based electoral districts, and campaign finance issues.

No oral arguments are set for any of the 32 new cases the Court has chosen to hear, although most are expected to be addressed in the fall.

While matters such as birthright citizenship and aspects of Donald Trump’s presidency aren’t yet on the docket, they may soon be included.

Here are some key cases to watch as the 2025-2026 session kicks off in the fall.

Election Questions

The case concerning campaign financing restrictions, particularly the National Republican Senate Committee vs. the Federal Election Commission, may lead to changes in the law. The Supreme Court agreed to review this case in June.

The lawsuit was initially filed in 2022 by now-President J.D. Vance and former Ohio Representative Steve Chabot. Interestingly, the Department of Justice has indicated it won’t defend certain restrictions they claim violate fundamental First Amendment rights.

Attorney General John Sauer noted in May that this situation is unique enough to warrant an exception to the usual DOJ stance of defending federal laws.

Race-related congressional districts are also under examination as the Court reviews ongoing disputes over Louisiana’s congressional map. The judge involved had to postpone a decision but is set to revisit whether creating a second majority-minority district is constitutional.

Additionally, in the case of Bost v. Illinois Election Commission, judges will evaluate challenges from Republican lawmakers against state rules that permit votes cast after Election Day to be counted.

Cultural Wars

The Supreme Court will also deliberate on challenges to bans preventing Idaho and West Virginia from allowing men to compete in women’s sports. This case raises questions related to the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title IX.

Half a dozen states have already enacted similar restrictions.

Interestingly, discussions on this matter come in light of actions taken by the Trump administration to support women’s sports. In July, the administration sued California after the state was deemed non-compliant with federal civil rights laws.

A related case, Chile v. Saraza, involves Colorado legislation that advises counselors against enabling gender transitions for minors but does allow for alternative guidance. The counselor, Kayley Chile, argues that this amounts to censorship.

Chile’s appeal indicates that her clients seek her perspective voluntarily, yet state law seems to limit her speech in a professional capacity.

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, the Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding demands for life support pregnancy centers, focusing on whether a subpoena can be contested before enforcement in state court.

Future Cases

The issue of birthright citizenship is likely to resurface in the Supreme Court’s docket soon.

In June, the Court ordered Trump to enforce an executive order that curtailed the ability of lower courts to issue broad injunctions. A district court did temporarily block this nationwide following a new class action lawsuit from immigrant families.

The DOJ is expected to make an urgent case for its review as this may head to court quickly.

Another point of consideration for the Court involves presidential authority over independent agency officials. The dilemma has arisen over whether past decisions allowing Trump to dismiss multiple officials set a formal precedent.

Previously, a conservative majority in the Court acknowledged that allowing retired officials to continue enforcement duties poses a significant risk to government interests.

Some suggested that the Trump administration’s approach to reassignments within the Consumer Product Safety Commission could be incorporated into merit-based deliberations by the Court.

Small businesses and states led by Democrats have raised concerns about Trump’s ability to impose tariffs under emergency circumstances, which may also make its way to the Court.

In recent findings, the US International Trade Court indicated that Trump’s tariffs might have exceeded his legally permitted authority, although this has been put on hold pending further appeals.