If I was to find a theme for the U.S. Supreme Court term, which ended June 30, it would be about the impact of its decisions for American democracy.

In some areas, such as its decisions on voting and campaign finance, I believe that the court weakened American democracy. The court greatly lessened the protections under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and also struck down another federal law regulating campaign finance. In the area of presidential power, the court expanded authority in some areas but also invalidated some key presidential actions. In cases involving individual rights, sometimes the court deferred to the political process, and sometimes overruled it, seemingly based on the justices’ views of the desirability of the laws.

Voting rights

Without question, I believe that the most important decision of the term was Louisiana v. Callais. It concerned Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits state and local governments from having election systems that disadvantage voters of color. In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 in 1982 to provide that proof of racially discriminatory impact would be sufficient for liability.

There were two crucial aspects to the court’s holding in Louisiana v. Callais. First, the court greatly weakened Section 2 by holding that there must be proof of racially discriminatory intent, which is enormously difficult to prove because rarely do legislators openly express a racist motive. Second, the court said that it is sufficient for a legislature to say that it is drawing election districts to favor a particular political party. Because Black individuals vote Democratic over 90% of the time in Southern states, it will be easy for Republican-controlled state legislatures to engage in redistricting that harms Black voters by saying that the goal is to favor Republicans.

The effects of this decision were evident quickly throughout the South. States like Louisiana, Florida and Tennessee immediately redrew congressional districts in a way that seem sure to decrease Black representatives in Congress. Louisiana v. Callais will lead to the largest loss of Black representatives in Congress and state legislatures since the end of Reconstruction.

After Louisiana v. Callais, the one avenue for proving a violation of voting rights is by demonstrating racially discriminatory intent. But in Allen v. Milligan, the court made this much more difficult. A three-judge federal district court found that the Alabama legislature had intentionally discriminated against Black voters.

But the Supreme Court, despite a detailed factual record and a lengthy lower court opinion, said “the district court did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.” The court came to this conclusion despite detailed fact-finding and analysis from the lower court. This indicates that it will be difficult to convince the court of intentional race discrimination in drawing election districts. Together, these decisions significantly weaken voting rights in the United States.

But not all voting cases were resolved in a conservative direction. In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the court ruled 5-4 that states may count absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received within five days after that. The court rejected the position urged by the Trump administration to restrict the counting of absentee ballots. The court held that such state laws are not preempted by the federal statute setting an Election Day.

Campaign finance

In an important First Amendment decision, the court declared unconstitutional a federal law that prohibited political parties from coordinating their expenditures with candidates for federal office. In 2001, in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, the court upheld this ban as a way of preventing political parties from circumventing limits on contributions to candidates and committees for them. Otherwise, people could just give to the political parties who could funnel the money to designated candidates.

In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision expressly overruled Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting, said that the court “jettisons a rule needed to protect our democracy’s integrity.”

The political ramifications are evident from the lineup of the political parties. The lawsuit was brought by JD Vance when he was running for the U.S. Senate in Ohio and by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The Democratic Party supported the federal law preventing coordination between political parties and candidates. The widespread perception is that the Supreme Court’s decision, like its ones concerning voting rights, will help Republicans much more than Democrats.

Presidential power

Many of the most important cases of the term involved challenges to President Donald Trump’s actions. In some instances, the court greatly expanded presidential power. In a significant increase in presidential powers, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Slaughter overruled a 90-year-old precedent and held that Congress cannot limit the removal of heads of federal agencies.

In 1935, in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the court unanimously held that Congress could prevent the president from firing commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission unless there was “just cause” for the firing. The Supreme Court followed this principle in many subsequent cases. But the court in Trump v. Slaughter expressly overruled Humphrey’s Executor.

But there also were notable instances where the court said no to Trump. In Trump v. Cook, the court upheld the ability of Congress to impose limits on governors of the Federal Reserve Board, holding that Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before she could be removed from office.

In Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court found that Trump’s tariffs were illegal because they lacked constitutional or statutory authority. In a 6-3 decision, the court struck down a key aspect of Trump’s economic agenda, though he has responded by trying to use other federal laws as a basis for new tariffs.

In a 6-3 decision in Trump v. Barbara, the court struck down Trump’s executive order issued on Jan. 20, 2025, which provides that only those born to citizens or those with green cards are United States citizens. In other words, under the executive order, a baby is not a citizen if born to an undocumented immigrant or to a person in the United States on a visa.

Five of the justices ruled it was unconstitutional for violating the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Justice Kavanaugh would have found the executive order to be constitutional, but said that it violated a federal statute.

The case is vitally important for the approximately 250,000 babies per year who would be denied citizenship under the Trump executive order, as well as in limiting the president’s power to redefine who is a United States citizen.

Deference to the political process?

Ultimately, constitutional law is about when the judiciary should defer to the political process and when it should overrule it. The court was inconsistent this term.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., the court upheld a West Virginia law prohibiting transgender girls and women from participating in sports that correspond to their gender identity. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court and, in rejecting an equal protection challenge, professed the need for deference to the government.

Even though the court treated the law as sex discrimination, he declared that when there is “‘medical and scientific uncertainty,’ this court has often said that the judiciary must be cautious about swooping in and invalidating laws. The legislatures, we have emphasized, maintain ‘wide discretion to pass legislation’ in those circumstances.”

By contrast, in Chiles v. Salazar, the court gave no deference to a judgment of the Colorado legislature prohibiting conversion therapy for gay, lesbian and transgender youths. The legislature, like that in 26 states that outlawed such therapy, found it ineffective and harmful. But the court gave no deference to that judgment, saying that strict scrutiny must be applied and clearly indicating that the law is unconstitutional.

In conclusion

Of course, these are just some of the major decisions of the term. But they certainly were among the most high-profile rulings and the most important. And they all, directly or indirectly, affect American democracy.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. He is an expert in constitutional law. He’s also the author of many books, including his most recent ones: Campus Speech and Academic Freedom: A Guide for Difficult Times and The Supreme Court October Term 2024: Taking Sides.