2025-2026 Supreme Court Term Preview

Louisiana v. Callais / Robinson v. Callais  

The Supreme Court requested a rehearing for two appeals challenging the redistricting of Louisiana’s congressional map, focusing on the creation of a second majority-Black district. The controversy stems from the state’s adoption of Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8) after a 2022 federal court ruling found the previous map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election practices that dilute the voting power of minority groups. The new map, designed to comply with the Voting Rights Act, drew a second majority-Black district, but opponents argued it constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, claiming the map prioritized race over other considerations, such as political interests.

On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision penned by Justice Alito, struck down Louisiana’s congressional map and significantly weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, eroding critical protections against racial discrimination.

This regressive ruling is yet another in a series of recent Supreme Court decisions that have chipped away at important freedoms that protect everyday people and preserve our democracy. The ruling further entrenches institutional barriers designed to silence Black voters and other historically marginalized communities. It encourages racially discriminatory voting policies and district maps.

Indeed, the ruling has already created broad implications for both the Voting Rights Act and redistricting practices nationwide. Since the decision, several southern states have already moved to redraw or adjust their congressional and legislative maps, including Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The Courts’ decision limited the scope of the Voting Rights Act’s protections in future redistricting efforts, potentially making it harder for minority groups to seek judicial intervention when electoral maps are drawn. AFJ’s statement on the decision can be found here. 

Trump v. Slaughter

In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court will decide whether statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) violate the separation of powers. The Court will also consider whether to overturn 90 years of precedent via Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the case which established that a president cannot fire the head of an independent agency without cause. This challenge results from Trump’s executive overreach in his attempt to fire two Democratic FTC commissioners without cause, circumventing Congress’s intent for the FTC to be an independent agency led by a bipartisan five-member commission. One of the commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter, sued to challenge her removal. While a federal judge ordered Slaughter be reinstated while litigation was ongoing, the Supreme Court reversed that decision and allowed Trump to remove Slaughter. In the same order, the Court granted certiorari before judgment, seemingly eager to overturn the nearly century-old precedent that has prevented presidents from firing independent agency heads at will.

This decision could further expand the executive branch’s power and allow the Trump administration to politicize and control the decisions of independent agencies ranging from the FTC to the National Labor Relations Board. Independent agencies exist to buffer against political influence, provide stability, and contribute much-needed technical expertise to help fill in regulatory gaps. Reduced independence will undoubtedly disrupt and dismantle these functions.

In an environment where the Trump administration continues to consolidate power by pushing the boundaries of long-established precedent, a broad-sweeping decision to undo removal protections with an unchecked ability to hire and fire anyone in the executive branch at will and without cause will further expand Trump’s presidential power. In the words of Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, “Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars…[s]till more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”

As of mid-June 2026, the Supreme Court has not yet issued a final ruling in Trump v. Slaughter.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

In  Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, the Supreme Court was poised to decide whether Chevron can sidestep state accountability by shifting its case to federal court. Chevron claims that its history as a federal contractor during World War II entitles it to federal jurisdiction, a legal maneuver widely criticized as a stalling tactic aimed at dodging a $740 million judgment handed down by a Louisiana jury. That verdict held Chevron responsible for decades of environmental destruction, including coastal erosion and wetland degradation caused by unregulated drilling, dredging, and waste dumping.

This case was just the beginning and one of several lawsuits brought by Louisiana parishes that accuse major oil and gas corporations of systematically violating state environmental laws and failing to repair the damage they’ve inflicted on vulnerable ecosystems. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Plaquemines Parish and against Chevron. Unfortunately, on April 17, 2026, in an 8-0 decision penned by Justice Thomas (in which Justice Alito recused himself), the court held that this case could, indeed, be removed to federal court instead of staying in state court under the federal officer removal statute, since Chevron’s increased crude oil production could be traced to supporting war efforts.

The court’s ruling siding with Chevron may not only erase the hard-won $740 million award but also force the state to restart its 2013 lawsuit in federal court, an arena often perceived as more sympathetic to corporate interests than to front-line communities bearing the brunt of the climate crisis.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court will reconsider its 2001 ruling in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, which upheld vital federal limits on political party coordination with candidates in campaign advertising. The challenge — filed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and then-Senator J.D. Vance, now vice president — claims these limits violate the First Amendment and are inconsistent with the Court’s more recent, deregulatory campaign finance decisions. Alarmingly, even before the Court has ruled, the Trump Administration’s FEC and DOJ have declined to enforce the existing law, undermining federal campaign finance safeguards.

Although contribution limits to political parties remain significantly higher than those to individual candidates ($44,300 to national parties versus $3,500 to candidates in the 2025–2026 cycle), a ruling in favor of the NRSC would effectively render individual limits meaningless. It would allow wealthy donors to funnel unlimited funds to specific candidates under the guise of party support, further weakening already fragile guardrails designed to limit corruption and undue influence. If the Court dismantles these restrictions, it would mark another blow to campaign finance reform and give even more power to the ultra-wealthy at the expense of democratic accountability and the public’s voice.

While this case was argued in December 2025, it has not yet been decided as of mid-June 2026.

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections  

Previously, Illinois allowed election officials to count mail-in ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day so long as the ballots are postmarked by that date. In Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the Supreme Court considered a challenge to the voting scheme filed by Republican Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential elector nominees who argued that the scheme extends Election Day in violation of federal laws, which also impairs their constitutional right to run for office by diluting their votes with “late” ballots.

Lower courts dismissed their case, finding that the plaintiffs failed to show any personal injury traceable to the state’s ballot-counting deadline. The Supreme Court granted review of this case, which opened the door to a dangerous new wave of litigation, where losing candidates or partisan actors can overturn election results simply by challenging settled state election practices.

On January 14, 2026, in a 7-2 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the court held that a candidate for federal office does have standing to challenge state rules governing how their votes are counted. The decision reversed the Seventh Circuit and revived the challenge to Illinois’s mail in ballot receipt deadline.

Justice Kagan joined Justice Barrett’s concurrence, agreeing on the judgment but not the reasoning. Both justices argued Bost has standing due to a pocketbook injury, not his status as a candidate.

Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor, noting, “Congressman Bost has failed to allege that the election-related law he seeks to challenge has caused him to suffer any injury that satisfies those requirements…Because I believe that political candidates can and should be held to the same actual-injury requirements as other litigants, I respectfully dissent.”

The court’s ruling favoring Bost risks turning routine, commonsense election administration into a constitutional flashpoint, empowering partisan actors to suppress votes cast by mail, which would disproportionately affect low-income voters, the disabled, older voters, and minority voters.

Chiles v. Salazar

In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court needed to decide whether Colorado’s lifesaving ban on so-called “conversion therapy” for minors, an abusive and discredited practice aimed at forcing LGBTQ+ youth to conform to heterosexual and cisgender norms, violates the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and religious exercise.

The case was brought by a Christian counselor who claims a religious right to subject minors to conversion therapy and seeks exemption from health care regulations. But the Tenth Circuit firmly rejected that argument, citing overwhelming scientific evidence that conversion therapy inflicts profound psychological harm and doubles the suicide risk for LGBTQ+ youth.

The appellate court rightly drew a clear boundary between the personal beliefs of private citizens and the responsibilities of licensed health care professionals, who are obligated to do no harm. Every major medical and mental health organization in the U.S., including the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, has unequivocally condemned conversion therapy as dangerous and unethical.

On March 31, 2026, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, the court struck down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and sent the case back down for review under a tough First Amendment “strict scrutiny” standard. This decision not only undermines the state’s ability to protect young people from psychological abuse, it would also legitimize a dangerous practice rooted in bigotry and disinformation. At a time when LGBTQ+ youth already face heightened rates of depression, bullying, and suicide, the Court’s decision could mean life or death. The Constitution should not be used as a weapon to endanger children in the name of religion. AFJ’s statement on the decision can be found here. 

West Virginia v. B.P.J.  

West Virginia v. B.P.J. is a pivotal test of transgender rights.  B. P. J., a 14-year-old transgender girl, has begun to receive puberty blockers and hormone therapy and would like to compete on the girls’ cross-country team at her middle school. She sued West Virginia after she was banned from doing so under the state’s “Save Women’s Sports Act.” She argues the ban violates Title IX’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The rights of transgender athletes have become a subject of an ongoing “culture war,” as reflected in the back-and-forth decisions on the case. The district court first agreed that B.P.J. was likely to succeed and temporarily ordered the state to allow B.P.J. to compete, but a district court judge later ruled for the state on summary judgment. On appeal, the circuit court put the summary decision on hold but barred the state from enforcing the law while the case continued in the lower court.

The Supreme Court’s decision will likely shape the legal status of more than two dozen anti-trans sports bans across the country and determine whether transgender youth can fully participate in public education without being singled out and excluded for who they are.

Argued together Little v. Hecox on January 13, 2026, these cases have not yet been decided. The tenor of the oral arguments suggest that the justices are likely to uphold the bans, but no opinion has been released.

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi

In Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, the Supreme Court needed to decide whether federal courts of appeals are allowed to second-guess Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions or must defer to them completely.

Douglas Urias-Orellana and his family escaped a terrifying pattern of violence in El Salvador. After a local hitman nearly killed his half-brothers and vowed to wipe out the entire family, Urias-Orellana moved multiple times to avoid danger. Despite these efforts, masked men repeatedly threatened to kill him unless he paid them, and he was assaulted when he returned to visit family. Fearing for their lives, Urias-Orellana and his wife and child fled to the United States in 2021 to seek asylum.

An immigration judge denied their asylum claim, dismissing the violent threats and assaults because Urias-Orellana did not need medical treatment. The immigration judge also cited that some relatives remained in El Salvador without further harm. The BIA upheld this decision.

On March 4, 2026, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson, the court held that when immigration cases are appealed from the BIA to one of the circuit courts, the reviewing court must give deference (substantial evidence review) to both the factual and legal findings of the BIA.

In this case, unfortunately, the court’s deference to the immigration judge’s denial of asylum will likely force Urias-Orellana and his family to return to El Salvador and the terrifying pattern of violence they tried to escape. Despite the negative impact of this decision on the Urias-Orellana family, the unanimity of the Court’s decision is supported by the fact that BIA judges (and the attorneys advising them) know a great deal more about immigration law than most federal judges and are often regarded as more pro-immigrant rights than many circuit judges.

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety

In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, the Supreme Court will decide whether incarcerated people can seek damages from state officials who violate their religious rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). As a Rastafarian, Damon Landor wears dreadlocks, a significant symbol of his faith. Despite providing the prison with a copy of a ruling by a federal appeals court striking down the state’s policy prohibiting prisoners from wearing dreadlocks, the prison’s warden instructed guards to restrain him in a chair and forcibly shaved his head.

Lower courts acknowledged the violation but ruled that Landor could not seek damages because RLUIPA, passed under Congress’s spending power, does not explicitly allow suits against state officials in their personal capacity. Landor’s case asks the Court to extend its 2020 ruling in Tanzin v. Tanvir, which allowed damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, to RLUIPA claims. A decision for Landor could finally give incarcerated people the right to hold abusive prison officials accountable for religious discrimination. A loss, however, would turn RLUIPA into an empty promise for the incarcerated and strip one of the only available remedies for the most vulnerable people to assert their rights behind bars.

This case was argued before the Supreme Court on November 10, 2025, and has not yet been decided. At oral argument, several justices, including Kavanaugh, expressed skepticism that RLUIPA’s text clearly supports individual damages.